mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================
_Is the Earth Young?_

A Response to the _Meteorite Dust_ Argument

_5. The rate at which meteoritic dust is accumulating on the earth
is such that after 5 billion years, the equivalent of 182 feet of
this dust should have accumulated. Because this dust is high in
nickel, there should be an exceedingly large amount of nickel in
the crustal rocks of the earth. No such concentration has been
found--on land or in the oceans. Consequently, the earth appears to
be young.
a) Henry M. Morris, Scientific Creationism (San Diego:
Creation-Life Publishers, 1974), pp. 151-153.
b) Steveson, pp. 23-25.
c) Hans Peterson, "Cosmic Spherules and Meteoritic Dust,"
Scientific American, Vol. 202, February, 1960, p. 132. _

6. If the moon were billions of years old, it should have
accumulated extensive layers of space dust--possibly a mile in
thickness. Before instruments were placed on the moon, NASA was
very concerned that our astronauts would sink into a sea of dust.
This did not happen; there is very little space dust on the moon.
Conclusion: the moon is young.

First, allow me to point out that, as in the case of the Earth's
magnetic field, I have also published on the web an extensive
criticism of the space-dust argument - "[1]Meteorite Dust and the Age
of the Earth".

Henry Morris, to arrive at his influx figure, cites the paper by
Pettersson in Scientific American. But the number cited by Morris as
the influx rate given by Pettersson was actually Pettersson's maximum
possible rate. Indeed, Pettersson specifically says that the most
probable rate is about 1/3 of the rate quoted by Morris.

Having screwed up the citation from Pettersson, Morris and other
creationists have proceeded to ignore all of the science done in this
fast-paced business for what now amounts to nearly _40 years!_,
continuing to cite Pettersson's 1960 paper.

But much work has been done since then, and the correct rate of influx
is now known, from direct spacecraft measurements, and from
observation of meteorite influx. See my article for the supporting
details. The bottom line is that a much better number for the true
dust accumulation rate on the earth is approximately 66 centimeters
over the entire 4.5 billion year history of the earth, assuming the
infall rate is constant (probably not such a good assumption), but
ignoring compaction of the dust under its own weight (space dust is
very fragile and would compress easily).

As for the business about NASA being afraid of a deep layer of dust
greeting the astronauts, that is a fiction, probably invented by
Harold Slusher. 'Twas never so. By the early 60's scientists knew that
any dust layer could not be greater in depth than one meter at the
very most, and was more likely 10cm or less. By 1965 the Ranger
spacecraft had proven there was no deep dust layer. And, of course,
the Surveyor landers had gone ahead of the astronauts, and landed on a
hard surface. By the time astronauts were on their way nobody expected
them to sink out of sight into the dust. They knew there might be a
thin dust layer, which could be a problem if it were kicked up by
landing rockets. That was a concern, but the creationists have
misinterpreted this concern into the fear of a deep dust layer.

References

[2]Meteorite Dust and the Age of the Earth - Tim Thompson

[3]Cosmic Dust - Dave Matson

[4]The Age of the Earth - Chris Stassen
_________________________________________________________________

[5]Back

setstats 1

References

1. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html
2. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html
3. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/moon_dust.html
4. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
5. file://localhost/www/sat/files/tim_thompson/young-earth.html#5