Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 203

Thread: Dust proves moon is only 10,000 yrs old

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1
    Er, I don't actually believe that.. I'm just referencing this specific propogandist strip:

    http://www.chick.com/catalog/comics/0106.asp

    I don't even know how to comment on this whole site, let alone the specific strip I'm linking to. Anyways, according to this guy, 14,300,000 tons of meteoritic dust falls onto the Earth each year and the same amount onto the moon. Therefore, in 5 billion years, the moon would be 137 feet deep in dust. Because Neil Armstrong's footprint only went into 1/8 inches of dust when he landed on the moon, that of course must mean the planet is new and no more than 10,000 years old in accordance with the bible.

    What a ton of balogne.

    I think people can believe what they want, but I hate when they try to discredit what other things with half-truths and rotten facts. A very under-handed tactic and spineless way to "convert" people, IMO.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    3,015
    Ah, Jack Chick, my favorite comic.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    2,874
    hehehe, my favorite was the erosion of the soil. This guy does not understand erosion rates at all does he?

    _________________
    "I am not conceited, i'm perfect"
    "It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." by Dan Sandler 2002

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2002-11-10 19:08 ]</font>

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    872
    On 2002-11-10 19:06, g99 wrote:
    hehehe, my favorite was the erosion of the soil. This guy does not understand erosion rates at all does he?
    Actually, if you use erosion rates *only,* then, yes, the world couldn't be much more than 100,000 years old. At observed rates of erosion, in another 100,000 years, the Alps, Himalayas, Rockies, and Andes would all be ground right down to sea level.

    Only when you factor in mountain-building processes, which weren't really well-known until very recently, do you bypass this critical problem in the age of the earth.

    (Volcanoes don't work; they produce the wrong kind of rock, and too slowly.)

    re the Moon, my *guess* would be that, over time, the dust compacts into a more and more solid kind of substance. Is that even close to correct?

    Silas

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    110
    The moon is 4 billion years old, and there is little doubt to that. There is absolutely NO possible way the moon could be 10,000 yrs old and have as many craters as it does (plus much more evidence).

    The cartoons are cool though. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    2,189
    Of course, if you use the wrong numbers you can get whatever answer you want. Here's the real story from the sainted talkorigins archive:

    Pettersson stood on a mountain top and collected dust there with a device intended for measuring smog levels. He published calculations which measured the amount of nickel he collected, assumed that nickel was only present in meteoritic dust, and assumed that some percentage of meteoritic dust was nickel, to get his final figures (that first assumption was wrong and caused his published figures to be a vast overestimate).

    Pettersson's calculation resulted in the a figure of about 15 million tons per year. He believed that estimate to be an over-estimate, and indicated in the paper that 5 million tons per year was a much more likely figure.

    Much more accurate measurements were available, from satellite penetration data (no possibility of earthly contamination), by the time Morris published Scientific Creationism. These more accurate measurements give the value of about 18,000 to 25,000 tons per year. These measurements agree with levels of meteoritic dust levels trapped in sediments on Earth. (That is, they are verified by an independent cross-check.)

    Morris chooses to pick obsolete data with known problems, and call it the "best" measurement available. His calculations are based on a figure that is nearly three orders of magnitude too high. With the proper values, the expected depth of meteoritic dust on the moon is less than one foot.
    Thanks to our very own Tim Thompson!

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JS Princeton on 2002-11-10 21:14 ]</font>

  7. #7
    Guest
    &lt;a name="20021110"> page 20021110 aka 20021110
    On 2002-11-10 18:27, GrapesOfWrath wrote: To? 1 HUb'
    Anyway? I rather agree with the concept of
    saying something like
    Durring the Devonian Period ??/
    "EARTH ROCK DEPOSITS" acumulated at a rate
    { i do not know the rate of deposition }
    {{ I have used numbers like 20 feet per 2000 years}}
    click here to get 500 feet in 100 million years
    http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...;0#2-11-10.GC5

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HUb' on 2002-11-11 00:09 ]</font>

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    2,874
    On 2002-11-10 19:22, Silas wrote:
    On 2002-11-10 19:06, g99 wrote:
    hehehe, my favorite was the erosion of the soil. This guy does not understand erosion rates at all does he?
    Actually, if you use erosion rates *only,* then, yes, the world couldn't be much more than 100,000 years old. At observed rates of erosion, in another 100,000 years, the Alps, Himalayas, Rockies, and Andes would all be ground right down to sea level.

    Only when you factor in mountain-building processes, which weren't really well-known until very recently, do you bypass this critical problem in the age of the earth.

    (Volcanoes don't work; they produce the wrong kind of rock, and too slowly.)

    re the Moon, my *guess* would be that, over time, the dust compacts into a more and more solid kind of substance. Is that even close to correct?

    Silas
    Ahh but acording to them those processes were created by satan to trick us!!!

    One good example or erosion is to show them the canadian shield. It is made up of some of the oldest rocks on earth (that can be reached relatively easily). I think they are a few billion years old. Aslo show them satleite pics of the hawaiian island chain and the emperor sea mounts. They are a very good example of slow erosion in action.

    Finmally, if the earth eas eroding so fast why do we still have coastal cities? Why do we have land at all? Even in 10,000 years at the reat they are suggesting the continents would be tottaly flat and be nearly gone.



  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    2,046
    LOL! I remember reading this comic back when I was in elementary school. This thing is so-o-o old!

    Hey, I was wondering about a couple things mentioned there, though. It states that a live mollusk was dated to be 3000 years old by the Carbon 14 method, and it states that lava rocks from a volcano that erupted in 1801 were dated to be 3 billion years old with the potassium argon method. Does anyone know what that's about?

    (I think that the Carbon 14 irregularity is because it doesn't work on living organisms, but I'm not sure.)

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    292
    When you have to argue with somebody who believes that mammoths were flash-frozen, that micro-evolution is cool but macroevolution is impossible; that moon dust proves the earth is young; that erosional rates are too high for an old earth; that sedimentary rates are too low; any of that kind of stuff...just go straight to http://www.talkorigins.org and browse around. You'll be glad you did.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,253
    a live mollusk was dated to be 3000 years old by the Carbon 14 method, and it states that lava rocks from a volcano that erupted in 1801 were dated to be 3 billion years old with the potassium argon method.
    http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...253/hovind.htm
    Hovind gives a number of Carbon 14 dates that are obviously wrong. Living mollusk shells are going to date wrong because they are in water with a different ratio of carbon 12/14 than in the atmosphere (Science vol.141, 634, vol.224, 58).
    Not entirely sure, but it sounds like this humongous PDF 32-page paper by Andrew Snelling, explaining the anomalous potassium-argon readings in certain kinds of andesite (short version--it's a chemistry thing, some andesite has more argon in it to begin with, so it's gonna mess up your dates), is put to the service of proving the Young Earth Thesis. He seems to be saying that his lava samples prove that the Earth is only 6000 years old. Somebody else wanna go read it? His conclusions are on page 27, and there's a bunch of data on page 13.
    http://www.ucglive.com/noah/Binders/...Ar%20dates.pdf

    I'm guessing that the "1801 Hualalai basalt, Hawaii" on page 13 is what's being referred to, but I'm finding this whole thing very confusing, so I will stop while I'm ahead.

  12. #12
    Guest
    <a name="2-11-10.OH"> page 2-11-10.OH aka Origional Horizantality
    On 2002-11-10 22:07, g99 wrote:
    On 2002-11-10 19:22, Silas wrote:
    On 2002-11-10 19:06, g99 wrote:
    hehehe, my favorite was the erosion of the soil. This guy does not understand erosion rates at all does he?
    Actually, if you use erosion rates *only,* then, yes, the world couldn't be much more than 100,000 years old. At observed rates of erosion, in another 100,000 years, the Alps, Himalayas, Rockies, and Andes would all be ground right down to sea level.
    OH, sure when i first heard J.Allen say
    "Origional Horizontality" i could have jumped right up
    and run up and socked him one.. having been raised on
    a mountain top, I knew full well (there were "ALWAYS" Mountians }
    {{ from day 1 }}
    http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...&0#2-11-10.GC5
    click that to get the 500 feet in 100 my's
    or skip it..
    My pint here, is that suppose I assume
    500 feet devided over 100 yealds 5 feet
    per million years on average
    and for sake of contriversy i'll include
    DUST {HERE} from the TONS of it falling to
    EARTH each year from the sources given in links above
    & below..
    1
    2
    3
    well i'll just leav the idea hanging for now and exit

  13. #13
    Guest
    On 2002-11-10 22:27, nebularain wrote:
    LOL! I remember reading this comic back when I was in elementary school. This thing is so-o-o old!

    Hey, I was wondering about a couple things mentioned there, though. It states that a live mollusk was dated to be 3000 years old by the Carbon 14 method, and it states that lava rocks from a volcano that erupted in 1801 were dated to be 3 billion years old with the potassium argon method. Does anyone know what that's about?

    (I think that the Carbon 14 irregularity is because it doesn't work on living organisms, but I'm not sure.)
    ahh? the very idea.. to me its the same as saying that rocks {from the Moon} Minted 4.5by ago Were Minted on the Moon at the time: addEMda How Old do the tests show rover to B ? OR NOT

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    2,189
    Radiometric dating works. The "issues" that creationists have with it are most often taken out of context. This is true with both the 14 C dating and the K/Ar dating mentioned in the glurge from Chick. The K/Ar dating was used to date xenolyths which are foreign rock species and therefore are NOT a measure of the flow's age but rather closer to the consitutent rock's age.

    Mollusks use carbon from a variety of sources to build their shells. It is to be expected that some of these sources would be old. Dating a mollusk shell with C 14 is an inappropriate method.

    Of course, all of this can be found at http://www.talkorigins.org

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    147
    K/Ar dating can give bad dates if Argon was still trapped in the molten rock or if the rock hadn't melted completely. Air bubbles during solidification can also contribute to anamolous ages. This is why much care is taken during sampling and why other dating methods with other isotopes are used to confirm ages (ie: Rb/Sr). As stated before C14 is not an appropriate dating technique for aquatic life.

    The creationist, so far, hasn't really addressed why if the moon is 10k years, do we have lunar rock dating over 4 billion years old.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6
    I also notice that all references are old (the Science paper quoted is from 1963). That is another usual creationist trick: to take some obsolete/superceded research as try to pass it off as state of the art.

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: oskorei on 2002-11-11 08:55 ]</font>

  17. #17
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    2,046
    Yeah, but also keep in mind the date of this comic - 1976, right? Like I said, it is old.

    Thanks for the info on the dating techniques (I know, everyone says to just look up the Talk Origins sight, but you know, that involves a lot of surfing to find exactly what you are looking for, and I seem to be "surfer"-challenged!).

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    2,874
    Another problem with dating lava rocks is that they can start to solifiy inside the volcano. IF it is near the surface or in a cool spot in the volcano, it can solidify then and the force of the eruption can bring it up. Also the volcano can be bringing up pieces of cone from a previous eruption. So a very old age for the eruption is possible. Than again one thing i noticed is that they mentioned that the rocks came from hawaii. unless i am mistaken hawaii is on a hot spot and is onlt a few (tens?) million years old, not the billions they say.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,683
    Haven't even most Creationists (the relatively honest ones at least) rejected the moon dust claim due to its overwhelming flaws?

    Nebularain, try the index page at TalkOrigins. I generally find it to be the most helpful when I'm looking for something. For example, here's their Moon dust page, found in seconds on that page. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html

    (D'oh! Just noticed JS posted it above. I didn't see it the first time. Oh, well. Doesn't hurt to repost it. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img])
    _________________
    <font size="-1">PLEASE NOTE: Some quantum physics theories suggest that when the consumer is not directly observing this product, it may cease to exist or will exist only in a vague and undetermined state.</font>

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Hall on 2002-11-11 17:27 ]</font>

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,683
    Here's the volcanic rock claim too.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-.../age.html#k-ar

    Scroll up for a couple of more general statements on radiometric dating.

    And yes, everything I've heard about C-14 is that it's only useful for non-living tissues, because living tissue continually collects C-14, and it only starts decaying once the biological processes have stopped. So that shellfish is right out.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,683
    BTW, it sure is a bit strange. I discovered (actually re-discovered) the Jack Chick stuff myself only last week. I ran across this page that criticizes/pokes fun at them. The one at the bottom, "Big Daddy", is more of the same tripe. Unfortunately, the image links on that page all seem to be broken, but you can find the originals on the Jack Chick page itself.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    147
    On 2002-11-11 17:38, David Hall wrote:
    Here's the volcanic rock claim too.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-.../age.html#k-ar

    Scroll up for a couple of more general statements on radiometric dating.

    And yes, everything I've heard about C-14 is that it's only useful for non-living tissues, because living tissue continually collects C-14, and it only starts decaying once the biological processes have stopped. So that shellfish is right out.
    The major flaw with C14 dating of shellfish is that they don't get their carbon from the atmosphere or plants. They get their carbon from the limestone and other dissolved carbonate minerals in the sea which are relatively old to begin with. Geologists and other scientists familiar with radiometric dating already know this, but young earth creationists still try to use this to discredit radiometric dating.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    116
    On 2002-11-11 17:23, David Hall wrote:
    Haven't even most Creationists (the relatively honest ones at least) rejected the moon dust claim due to its overwhelming flaws?
    <snip>
    Yep, even Answers in Genesis has discarded that notion.

  24. #24
    Guest

    On 2002-11-10 21:06, JS Princeton wrote:







    about 18,000 to 25,000 tons per year.
    10:04 P.M. November 12, 2002 HUb' ?
    Well ? Judging from lunar craters
    its pretty clear to me that some "YEARS"
    Large Craters {heavy deposits} occured
    and other "Years" probably theres very little
    4me The Main source of ?"Space Dust"? comes from
    solar eruptions.. and its more random .. or at least as random as
    Earth Quake data.. Some times more sometimes Less.. But the is a cycle 2 it?

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    2,042
    And of course, the answer to the original question about Armstrong's footprints only sinking 1/8" or so into the dust is, "How deep is the sand at the beach? Why don't you sink out of sight there?"

    The moondust and the sand do the same thing...they compact and compress, thereby supporting whatever's on them. What...these loons expected the moon's surface to be composed of quicksand?

  26. #26
    Guest

    On 2002-11-13 02:48, Charlie in Dayton wrote:


    hese loons expected the moon's

    ----
    how about hihly charged particles
    THAT REPELL one another

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    721
    Lunar dust results from the impact of extralunar material which shatters both the native moon rock and the impacting body. Ignoring the material that melts and refreezes into glasslike spheres, the shattering of crystalline structures in a vacuum results in a couple of unique properties of the dust:
    Physically, it has highly irregular surfaces that are not subject to any erosional activity. The result is a material in which the grains don't easily slide past each other giving the matrix unusual stability. The other factor is chemical. A crystal shattered in a vacuum has a surface with a large number of chemical bonding sites. With no atmosphere and no water on the moon, these bonding sites are "looking" for the opportunity to either gain or lose electrons. When one particle is pressed against another, a weak bonding link will tend to hold the particles together. Even the dust 1/2 inch below the surface is under enough pressure to cause it to bond together in a relatively solid matrix. One of the reasons the dust clung so much to the astronauts space suits is this chemical characteristic that would be a lot like static cling.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,853
    I'm old enuff to remember when the astronauts went to the moon. Just before they went, on a sunday morning talk show there was a big debate about how deep the dust was on the surface. I forget the names of the debaters, but they were well credentialed. One guy said it was at least 10 feet deep and the astronauts would sink in. The other said baloney. One of the participants had a pile of dust in a small ashtray. He was talking about the solar wind coming along and blowing it around. He blew into the ashtray and raised a small cloud of dust. The other guy started coughing, and coughing, and coughing,and coughing,and coughing,and coughing,and coughing,and coughing,and coughing,and coughing,and coughing,and coughing,and coughing,....

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,299
    I've heard of second-hand smoke, but that's ridiculous!

    On the previous post, the bit about
    Physically, it has highly irregular surfaces that are not subject to any erosional activity got my attention. I've always thought about erosion in macroscopic terms (the canyon erodes, or the rock or riverbank erodes). Are you saying the microscopic lunar particles don't erode individually? I mean, there's no constant churning in water, but over millions of years wouldn't exposure to the radiation and thermal environment degrade even small bits? Of course, new bits get made all the time too...


  30. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    721
    You are probably correct. There likely is some erosional force at work on the moon. Tectonics would cause particles to rub together. Bombardment by small particles, including cosmic rays could tend to smooth the surfaces of materials impacted, and of course any meteorite impacts would cause vibration that would also create motion between dust granules.
    I should have said there is no significant ongoing erosional mechanism at work. The impact of what little there is would be dwarfed by the creation of new fractured material.

    The analysis of samples of lunar regolith returned to earth confirms that the grains are highly angular and irregular - with the exeption of the portion that was fused by meteorite impacts.

Similar Threads

  1. Depth of moon dust
    By wd40 in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 2011-Dec-18, 11:41 AM
  2. Moon dust
    By neilzero in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2010-Jan-20, 12:31 PM
  3. New Video proves we went to the moon. What? There ARE pictures of the stars?
    By Sir Mildred Pierce in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 2008-Mar-31, 01:14 PM
  4. This webpage proves the moon landing is fake?!
    By nitefallz in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 2002-Sep-18, 01:45 AM
  5. Space Shuttle Photo Proves Moon Landings Were a Hoax
    By jrkeller in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 2002-Aug-09, 04:58 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: