http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ mirrored file
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================

Answers Magazine

Answers Magazine </onlinestore/gateway.asp?PageType=detail&UID=95-1-001>

* Subscribe Now! </onlinestore/gateway.asp?PageType=detail&UID=95-1-001>

/Answers/ magazine is the Bible-affirming, creation-based magazine from
/Answers in Genesis/. In it you will find fascinating content and
stunning photographs that present creation and worldview articles along
with relevant cultural topics from different authors. Each quarterly
issue includes a detachable chart, a pullout children?s magazine, a
unique animal highlight, excellent layman and semi-technical articles
plus bonus content from the AnswersMagazine.com
<http://www.answersmagazine.com> website. Our purpose is to equip you,
our reader, with practical answers so you can confidently communicate
the gospel and biblical authority with accuracy. Why wait? Subscribe
today! </store/95-1-001>

Moon-dust argument no longer useful

First published:
/Creation/ *15*(4):22
September 1993

For years, a common and apparently valid argument for a recent creation
was to use uniformitarian assumptions to argue that the amount of dust
on the moon was less than 10,000 years? worth.

In an important paper, geologist Dr Andrew Snelling
</home/area/bios/a_snelling.asp> from Australia?s Creation Science
Foundation [now /Answers in Genesis/], and former Institute for Creation
Research graduate student Dave Rush, have examined in minute detail all
the evidence relating to this argument.^1 They have shown that:

1.

The amount of dust coming annually on to the earth/moon is much
smaller than the amount estimated by (noncreationists) Pettersson,
on which the argument is usually based.

2.

Uniformitarian assumptions cannot therefore justifiably be turned
against evolutionists to argue for a young age.

3.

Most NASA scientists, in fact, were convinced before the Apollo
landings that there was not much dust likely to be found there.

Interestingly, Snelling and Rush?s research found that anti-creationist
critics, in their haste to demolish the argument, had used figures which
err greatly in the opposite direction.

For example, theistic evolutionists from Calvin College, after
scathingly critiquing creationists for alleged erroneous handling of
data, do precisely that and arrive at a figure for moon-dust influx only
about one-twentieth of that which should have been correctly concluded
from the literature they consulted. ^2

The moon-dust argument was easy to understand and explain. Nevertheless,
as we have indicated before, creationists as well as evolutionists need
to be prepared to re-examine arguments as new and better data emerges.

References

1.

Snelling, Dr A. </home/area/bios/a_snelling.asp> and Rush, D.,
Moon Dust and the Age of the Solar System
</home/area/magazines/tj/moondust%28v7n1%29/moondust.asp>,
/Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal/
</Home/Area/Magazines/technical.asp>, Vol. 7 (Part 1), 1993, pp. 2?42.

2.

H. J. van Till, D.A. Young, and C. Menninga, ?Footprints on the
dusty moon?, In: /Science Held Hostage/, InterVarsity Press,
Downers Grove, Illinois, ch. 4, pp.67?82.

Help keep these daily articles coming. Find out how to support AiG
</donate/>.

ECFA <http://www.ecfa.org/>Evangelical Press Association
<http://www.epassoc.org/>Gospel Communications Alliance Member
<http://www.gospelcom.net/>
© Copyright 2009 Answers in Genesis </about/use-policy>

k