Interesting Facts You Didn't learn in School

[justaname]

1. Light is not constant, it can be manipulated.
2. The moon cannot be 4.5 billion years old due to the rate it recedes from the earth.
3. Man made objects have been found in coal deposits thought to be millions of years old.
4. Diamonds can be made in hours. (Industrial and even pure quality)
5. Gold can be formed instantly in earthquakes.
6. Fossilization can happen very quickly, some scientists claim instantly.
7. At the mouth of every major river there is 4,250 years of sediment deposited. (can you say flood)
8. Marco Polo saw dinosaurs.
9. Carbon dating is inaccurate and cannot be measured over 250,000 years due to half-life. (millions of years?)
10. Soft tissue was found in dinosaur bones.
11. Pangea is a biblical concept. (Genesis 1:9)
12. Topographical maps of the ocean floor give evidence of the cleaving of the fountains of the deep.
13. Radiometric dating is based on biased presuppositions.
14. The sea should be much more salty than it is according to the old earth model.
15. The decay of the magnetic field of the earth makes it look more like 10,000 years old.
16. There are no very old supernova which indicates a young universe.
17. There is not nearly enough helium in the atmosphere for the earth to be billions of years old.

These are a few facts that push me to the young earth model belief. Interesting stuff really, but my field of study is biblical, not science.

Anyone want to add to this list?

Yeah did I mention the Bible supports a young earth model also? Just sayin...

 

[KingJ]

Very interesting.

I can't think of any except that I wish I could visit my science teacher and help her and my class at the time better understand the mathematical odds of evolution.

 

[River Jordan]

So where did you hear these "interesting facts"?

 

[Thunderkat]

There is so much to learn, we haven't even scratched the surface. The coolest factoid I learned recently is an incredible amount of fresh water was found deep underground and it is sealed in by ringwoodite. http://news.discovery.com/earth/oceans/oceans-of-water-found-locked-deep-inside-earth-140612.htm

Where do you think that water came from?

 

[StanJ]

Very interesting JAN...where did you get this info?

 

[justaname]

I am taking a seminar with Dr. Grady McMurtry. He is a life member of the Creation Research Society, Mensa, and Phi Kappa Phi Honor Society. He spent 20 years teaching evolution in the American public schooling system to come to the conclusion that it was wrong.

http://creationworldview.org

But to give a few notes on some of these bullet points...

1. "Nature" magazine published scientists claiming to "stop light" for 1.5 seconds. It is also claimed different scientists accelerated light.
2. The moon is moving away from the earth at about 1.5 inches per year. The further back in time you go the faster the recede rate, due to the nature of gravity. You can do the math yourself, the moon would be touching the earth 1.37 billions years ago. This is far to young for the current estimated date and also the radiometric dated moon rocks.
3. A bell was found in coal, as well as other objects. http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/paleontological/artifacts/hammer/
4. It is common knowledge that man can make diamonds, we have been doing this since the 1942 or so. We have been advancing the technologies to the point where it takes only hours with lower temps and less pressures.
5. Again "Nature" magazine....http://www.nature.com/news/earthquakes-make-gold-veins-in-an-instant-1.12615
6. Fossilized teddy bear...lol you research it! But you can also look at this http://creation.com/fast-fossils
7. Here is another site...http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

Enjoy!

The pillar of evolution is time...remove this pillar and the entire theory fails. Lining up sculls according to size proves only that you are smart enough to do it, and that there are different size sculls. As far as the sculls that were not hoaxes or misrepresentations in the "road to man", we have an ape (Lucy) and the rest have been classified as homo-sapiens (us) including the neanderthal (again homo-sapien). Research it for yourself.

 

[StanJ]

When man landed on the moon, they made the lunar lander with very wide pads because they thought, based on the accepted age of the universe, that it would be full of dust.

‘It is known that there is essentially a constant rate of cosmic dust particles entering the earth’s atmosphere from space and then gradually settling to the earth’s surface. The best measurements of this influx have been made by Hans Pettersson, who obtained the figure of 14 million tons per year.1 This amounts to 14 x 1019 pounds in 5 billion years. If we assume the density of compacted dust is, say, 140 pounds per cubic foot, this corresponds to a volume of 1018 cubic feet. Since the earth has a surface area of approximately 5.5 x 1015 square feet, this seems to mean that there should have accumulated during the 5-billion- year age of the earth, a layer of meteoritic dust approximately 182 feet thick all over the world!
( excerpt from; http://creation.com/moon-dust-and-the-age-of-the-solar-system )

 

[River Jordan]

I am taking a seminar with Dr. Grady McMurtry. He is a life member of the Creation Research Society, Mensa, and Phi Kappa Phi Honor Society. He spent 20 years teaching evolution in the American public schooling system to come to the conclusion that it was wrong.

Can you ask him why he hasn't written up his argument that would overturn the unifying framework for all the life sciences into a manuscript and submitted it to a journal? Even if they arbitrarily rejected it, the arbitrary rejection would be a powerful creationist talking point.

1. "Nature" magazine published scientists claiming to "stop light" for 1.5 seconds. It is also claimed different scientists accelerated light.

Under what conditions, and have the results been replicated?

2. The moon is moving away from the earth at about 1.5 inches per year. The further back in time you go the faster the recede rate, due to the nature of gravity. You can do the math yourself, the moon would be touching the earth 1.37 billions years ago. This is far to young for the current estimated date and also the radiometric dated moon rocks.

Can I see this math?

3. A bell was found in coal, as well as other objects. http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/paleontological/artifacts/hammer/

At best all of those are merely second and third-hand stories. AFAICT, none of these alleged artifacts are available for investigation.

4. It is common knowledge that man can make diamonds, we have been doing this since the 1942 or so. We have been advancing the technologies to the point where it takes only hours with lower temps and less pressures.

Ok.

5. Again "Nature" magazine....http://www.nature.com/news/earthquakes-make-gold-veins-in-an-instant-1.12615

Ok.

6. Fossilized teddy bear...lol you research it! But you can also look at this http://creation.com/fast-fossils

I'm not sure I understand the point here. Is it "some fish fossils are very well preserved, therefore the earth is young"?

7. Here is another site...http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

Is there something at that website you find particularly compelling?

The pillar of evolution is time...remove this pillar and the entire theory fails.

Assuming that's true, you've not really given us any reason to do so.

Lining up sculls according to size proves only that you are smart enough to do it, and that there are different size sculls.

Really? Is that truly what you think is behind paleoanthropology? It's just "lining up skulls according to size"? Nothing else is considered?

As far as the sculls that were not hoaxes or misrepresentations in the "road to man", we have an ape (Lucy) and the rest have been classified as homo-sapiens (us) including the neanderthal (again homo-sapien). Research it for yourself.

So what physical characteristics differentiate "ape" from "human"?

When man landed on the moon, they made the lunar lander with very wide pads because they thought, based on the accepted age of the universe, that it would be full of dust.

‘It is known that there is essentially a constant rate of cosmic dust particles entering the earth’s atmosphere from space and then gradually settling to the earth’s surface. The best measurements of this influx have been made by Hans Pettersson, who obtained the figure of 14 million tons per year.1 This amounts to 14 x 1019 pounds in 5 billion years. If we assume the density of compacted dust is, say, 140 pounds per cubic foot, this corresponds to a volume of 1018 cubic feet. Since the earth has a surface area of approximately 5.5 x 1015 square feet, this seems to mean that there should have accumulated during the 5-billion- year age of the earth, a layer of meteoritic dust approximately 182 feet thick all over the world!
( excerpt from; http://creation.com/moon-dust-and-the-age-of-the-solar-system )

FYI, that's one of the absolute worst, and most dishonest, creationist arguments out there. Apparently you weren't aware that NASA landed Surveyor I on the moon in 1966. So they already knew well before the Apollo missions what the moon's surface was like. Whoever told you that the lunar landers had "very wide pads" because they thought the moon would be full of dust is lying to you.

 

[StanJ]

FYI, that's one of the absolute worst, and most dishonest, creationist arguments out there. Apparently you weren't aware that NASA landed Surveyor I on the moon in 1966. So they already knew well before the Apollo missions what the moon's surface was like. Whoever told you that the lunar landers had "very wide pads" because they thought the moon would be full of dust is lying to you.

Opinion means nothing RJ...do you know what the size of the footpads on all the Surveyors were? Did the Lunar Lander have smaller ones? Why or why not?
Do you dispute Hans Pettersson's formula? Did you notice it was about earth and not the moon?
Seems you are awfully quick to disagree and judge without having all the facts? Are you an OE advocate?

What is dishonest is claiming others are without have empirical evidence to the contrary.

 

[River Jordan]

Opinion means nothing RJ...do you know what the size of the footpads on all the Surveyors were? Did the Lunar Lander have smaller ones? Why or why not?
Do you dispute Hans Pettersson's formula? Did you notice it was about earth and not the moon?
Seems you are awfully quick to disagree and judge without having all the facts? Are you an OE advocate?

What is dishonest is claiming others are without have empirical evidence to the contrary.

???????????? You claimed "When man landed on the moon, they made the lunar lander with very wide pads because they thought, based on the accepted age of the universe, that it would be full of dust".

That's factually and historically wrong. How do we know? Because they landed an unmanned craft on the moon three years before any manned flights. Are you saying that didn't happen or something?

 

[StanJ]

???????????? You claimed "When man landed on the moon, they made the lunar lander with very wide pads because they thought, based on the accepted age of the universe, that it would be full of dust".

That's factually and historically wrong. How do we know? Because they landed an unmanned craft on the moon three years before any manned flights. Are you saying that didn't happen or something?

and why do you think they made it with wide pads originally and didn't change the design after ONE landing? Because they did NOT know for sure and were going with the science of the time. You seem to avoid answering pertinent questions and just like making assertions?

 

[justaname]

Can you ask him why he hasn't written up his argument that would overturn the unifying framework for all the life sciences into a manuscript and submitted it to a journal? Even if they arbitrarily rejected it, the arbitrary rejection would be a powerful creationist talking point.


Under what conditions, and have the results been replicated?


Can I see this math?



At best all of those are merely second and third-hand stories. AFAICT, none of these alleged artifacts are available for investigation.


Ok.



Ok.



I'm not sure I understand the point here. Is it "some fish fossils are very well preserved, therefore the earth is young"?

Is there something at that website you find particularly compelling?


Assuming that's true, you've not really given us any reason to do so.


Really? Is that truly what you think is behind paleoanthropology? It's just "lining up skulls according to size"? Nothing else is considered?


So what physical characteristics differentiate "ape" from "human"?


FYI, that's one of the absolute worst, and most dishonest, creationist arguments out there. Apparently you weren't aware that NASA landed Surveyor I on the moon in 1966. So they already knew well before the Apollo missions what the moon's surface was like. Whoever told you that the lunar landers had "very wide pads" because they thought the moon would be full of dust is lying to you.

He did not write a journal. His response to the question was this information is known not hidden.
I have seen different publications with this type of information also, Dr. McMurtry is not the only creation scientist. If you are truly serious of researching this type of information there are several sources. Yet if you are simply interested in promoting evolution I can't really help you.

You can read the Nature mag article for yourself regarding these questions about light.

Again you can do the math for yourself. Mass of earth, Mass of moon, gravitational formula, distance, current recede rate, roll back time...you seem to be more the scientist...figure it out for yourself.

Not so sure you have the correct information about the man made objects found in coal...this one site is not exhaustive in this subject.

The point of fossilization is it does not take millions of years for the process.

You can review the website, it is simply another source giving collaborative information.

The aim of this post is to give information, not debunk evolution. What this post does prove though is certain things do not take millions of years to come about like diamonds, or gold, or opals. If these man made items were found in the coal seams, either man is millions of years old or coal is simply thousands. Also light is not the constant speed most are taught it is. Man is evidenced throughout history to live alongside dinosaurs, or as they were recorded as before "dragons." Even the "Father of History" Herodotus wrote of them. There are astrological reasons the universe looks young. There are environmental reasons the earth looks young. Also there is strong scientific and historical evidence of a world wide flood. If the flood story is true, which I believe it is, then many current scientific theories must be re-examined. If the flood is true, this further validates the creation narrative given in Genesis.

The classification of sculls is based on measuring and dating processes. Tell me different, prove me wrong.

How do they date bones they find? By the fossils they find in the strata. How do they date the fossils they find? By the layer of strata they are in. How do they date the strata? By the fossils that are there. Can you say circular reasoning?

Now the ape/human question is for a scientist not me.

Academia is militantly beholden to evolution because of the "No God" scenario they promote and enforce.

 

[Suhar]

Earth does not rotate around the Sun:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnLYIbpNst4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YI849i1RYG8

 

[River Jordan]

and why do you think they made it with wide pads originally and didn't change the design after ONE landing? Because they did NOT know for sure and were going with the science of the time. You seem to avoid answering pertinent questions and just like making assertions?

Do you have any actual evidence that supports your version of history? Something specific from NASA maybe?

He did not write a journal. His response to the question was this information is known not hidden.
I have seen different publications with this type of information also, Dr. McMurtry is not the only creation scientist. If you are truly serious of researching this type of information there are several sources. Yet if you are simply interested in promoting evolution I can't really help you.

I'm not sure if you understood what I was asking. In science, new findings, research results, and critiques and such all are done through articles and letters in the scientific journals like Science, Nature, The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, etc. So if this guy believes he has a valid scientific case that will overturn evolutionary theory, why isn't he sharing that with the scientific community (by publishing in the journals)?

It's basically like someone saying "I've figured out perpetual motion and an unlimited source of energy", but refusing to share it with any actual scientists.

You can read the Nature mag article for yourself regarding these questions about light.

Do you have citations?

Again you can do the math for yourself. Mass of earth, Mass of moon, gravitational formula, distance, current recede rate, roll back time...you seem to be more the scientist...figure it out for yourself.

You mean you haven't done the math yourself? Why not?

Not so sure you have the correct information about the man made objects found in coal...this one site is not exhaustive in this subject.

I went to the site you linked to and immediately noticed that none of the alleged anomalies described are available for study. They're all just stories.

The point of fossilization is it does not take millions of years for the process.

The site you linked to doesn't show that at all. It just says that some fish fossils are preserved in detail, and from that it tries to conclude that the earth must be young. That's a pretty poor argument.

The aim of this post is to give information, not debunk evolution. What this post does prove though is certain things do not take millions of years to come about like diamonds, or gold, or opals. If these man made items were found in the coal seams, either man is millions of years old or coal is simply thousands. Also light is not the constant speed most are taught it is. Man is evidenced throughout history to live alongside dinosaurs, or as they were recorded as before "dragons." Even the "Father of History" Herodotus wrote of them. There are astrological reasons the universe looks young. There are environmental reasons the earth looks young. Also there is strong scientific and historical evidence of a world wide flood. If the flood story is true, which I believe it is, then many current scientific theories must be re-examined. If the flood is true, this further validates the creation narrative given in Genesis.

It looks to me like you're regurgitating things you've been told, but you really don't understand them and as soon as someone asks even the most basic questions, you can't answer.

The classification of sculls is based on measuring and dating processes. Tell me different, prove me wrong.

That's pretty different than what you said before, where you described paleoanthropology as "Lining up sculls according to size".

How do they date bones they find? By the fossils they find in the strata. How do they date the fossils they find? By the layer of strata they are in. How do they date the strata? By the fossils that are there. Can you say circular reasoning?

Can you show me any published paper where that process is used?

Now the ape/human question is for a scientist not me.

Again, this all comes across as you mindlessly regurgitating what someone has told you, even though you don't really understand it at all. For example, you claimed "we have an ape (Lucy) and the rest have been classified as homo-sapiens". But when I asked you what the difference is between an ape and a human, you're like "I dunno".

You see the problem?

Academia is militantly beholden to evolution because of the "No God" scenario they promote and enforce.

Then why is it that the vast majority of people who accept evolution as valid are theists?

Earth does not rotate around the Sun:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnLYIbpNst4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YI849i1RYG8

So Suhar's a geocentrist. How 'bout that? <_<

 

[Suhar]

So Suhar's a geocentrist. How 'bout that? <_<

So RJ is ignorant of scientific facts, discoveries and successful experiments proving geocentrism. How about that! He is so afraid of scientific facts he is afraid to listen to an interview about them! How about that!

On top of that RJ is scared of the Bible clearly making case for geocentrism! How about that!

Start by explaining away Polaris.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvwMc1jcR7Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpJyfusm1xw

 

[River Jordan]

Suhar,

Since I'm sure I'm not the only Christian here who would be very interested to see your Biblical argument for geocentrism, how about starting a new thread where you lay out this Biblical argument for us? That way everyone will get to see it and we won't derail justaname's thread.

Also, I'm not a guy.

 

[justaname]

Do you have any actual evidence that supports your version of history? Something specific from NASA maybe?


I'm not sure if you understood what I was asking. In science, new findings, research results, and critiques and such all are done through articles and letters in the scientific journals like Science, Nature, The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, etc. So if this guy believes he has a valid scientific case that will overturn evolutionary theory, why isn't he sharing that with the scientific community (by publishing in the journals)?

It's basically like someone saying "I've figured out perpetual motion and an unlimited source of energy", but refusing to share it with any actual scientists.


Do you have citations?


You mean you haven't done the math yourself? Why not?


I went to the site you linked to and immediately noticed that none of the alleged anomalies described are available for study. They're all just stories.


The site you linked to doesn't show that at all. It just says that some fish fossils are preserved in detail, and from that it tries to conclude that the earth must be young. That's a pretty poor argument.


It looks to me like you're regurgitating things you've been told, but you really don't understand them and as soon as someone asks even the most basic questions, you can't answer.


That's pretty different than what you said before, where you described paleoanthropology as "Lining up sculls according to size".


Can you show me any published paper where that process is used?


Again, this all comes across as you mindlessly regurgitating what someone has told you, even though you don't really understand it at all. For example, you claimed "we have an ape (Lucy) and the rest have been classified as homo-sapiens". But when I asked you what the difference is between an ape and a human, you're like "I dunno".

You see the problem?


Then why is it that the vast majority of people who accept evolution as valid are theists?


So Suhar's a geocentrist. How 'bout that? <_<

What you are asking about is actually published in Nature Mag...the two articles I explained, so I am not so sure you are going anywhere with your request in the first response. Again this information is published...not sure where you are going here.

Also a quick google search...http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/3159/20130725/light-brought-complete-stop-one-minute.htm

and http://www.sciences360.com/index.php/physicists-accelerate-light-to-near-infinite-speed-2015/

finally this one might be a bit weighted in the subject...http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm

This is from the fossilization site you apparently didn't read..."To preserve such features, it is obvious that the creature needs to be buried quickly. Not just that, but the enclosing sediment needs to harden fairly quickly. If it stayed soft and unconsolidated for years, the fact that oxygen, moisture and bacteria could easily access the carcass means that one would very quickly have a disintegrated, stinking mess. To try to imitate how such features as scales and fins can possibly be preserved, the best experimental analogy would be to bury a fish rapidly in wet cement!"

It isn't that I can't answer; the questions you ask could be answered easily by yourself and a little research. It seems to me you are uninterested in seeking truth rather seeking to discredit me. I don't see the problem with my admitting I am not a scientist. They are the ones who classified the sculls, not me. If one scull is classified as an ape, I have no problem with that nor does it affect my worldview. If another is classified as homo-sapien then so be it. The fact stands there is no link between humanity and apes. Every scull found pointing to that direction fails as a hoax or misrepresentation. The depth or brevity of my knowledge is not the concern you want it to be. I don't know all of the inner workings of the gasoline engine either, but I can still drive my car and cut my lawn. These issues are not about me and my research, yet you attempt to distract the real issues. Not an ethical argument...

As far as the theist remark is concerned, I disagree. My subject was academia...not just the world at large. Do you have a modern census stating the majority of evolution-believing professors and teachers including facility are theists?

Here is the dating process...please read it carefully. It specifically states it is impossible to date millions of years using carbon 14 dating methods in fact it is called inaccurate over 40,000 years...btw this is a pro-evolution site.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/science-of-natural-history/the-scientific-process/dating-methods/index.html

Now lets take into account the biased presuppositions all dating processes involve...

 

[River Jordan]

What you are asking about is actually published in Nature Mag...the two articles I explained, so I am not so sure you are going anywhere with your request in the first response. Again this information is published...not sure where you are going here.

Also a quick google search...http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/3159/20130725/light-brought-complete-stop-one-minute.htm

In that case, the scientists stopped light by capturing it in a specifically manufactured crystal that was cryogenically cooled to a very low temperature. So I'm not sure what you're point is in citing that.

and http://www.sciences360.com/index.php/physicists-accelerate-light-to-near-infinite-speed-2015/

And in that one, the scientists achieved their results by "using the exotic materials created in the world of metametals—artificial composites with incredible properties beyond those created naturally". So again, I'm not really sure what your point is in citing it.

finally this one might be a bit weighted in the subject...http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm

Same thing. I'm not sure why you cited this.

This is from the fossilization site you apparently didn't read..."To preserve such features, it is obvious that the creature needs to be buried quickly. Not just that, but the enclosing sediment needs to harden fairly quickly. If it stayed soft and unconsolidated for years, the fact that oxygen, moisture and bacteria could easily access the carcass means that one would very quickly have a disintegrated, stinking mess. To try to imitate how such features as scales and fins can possibly be preserved, the best experimental analogy would be to bury a fish rapidly in wet cement!"

So if finely-preserved fossils indicate rapid burial, does than therefore mean poorly-preserved fossils indicate very long periods of burial and fossilization?

It isn't that I can't answer; the questions you ask could be answered easily by yourself and a little research. It seems to me you are uninterested in seeking truth rather seeking to discredit me. I don't see the problem with my admitting I am not a scientist.

I don't think you understand how these things are supposed to work. If you're going to post a series of arguments, then it is your responsibility to support them. It isn't everyone else's responsibility to do the work necessary to support your arguments. Unless of course you were just counting everyone here being like "Oh, since justaname says so, those things are so". I mean, if you can't back up any of what you say, why should anyone accept it?

They are the ones who classified the sculls, not me. If one scull is classified as an ape, I have no problem with that nor does it affect my worldview. If another is classified as homo-sapien then so be it. The fact stands there is no link between humanity and apes. Every scull found pointing to that direction fails as a hoax or misrepresentation. The depth or brevity of my knowledge is not the concern you want it to be. I don't know all of the inner workings of the gasoline engine either, but I can still drive my car and cut my lawn. These issues are not about me and my research, yet you attempt to distract the real issues. Not an ethical argument...

I don't think you understand the problem here. You are here making very serious accusations against the people who work in paleoanthropology. You're accusing them of deliberate fraud and claiming that their conclusions are completely wrong. Don't you have that little voice in your head that says "Gosh, if I'm going to accuse all these people, I probably should back it up"? Or were you again figuring that everyone here would just take your word for it?

As far as the theist remark is concerned, I disagree. My subject was academia...not just the world at large. Do you have a modern census stating the majority of evolution-believing professors and teachers including facility are theists?

CLICK HERE

"Only 10% of professors are athiests and another 13 percent are agnostic."

Here is the dating process...please read it carefully. It specifically states it is impossible to date millions of years using carbon 14 dating methods in fact it is called inaccurate over 40,000 years...btw this is a pro-evolution site.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/science-of-natural-history/the-scientific-process/dating-methods/index.html

Well yeah. If you know how C14 dating works, it makes sense that it only works on objects younger than ~40k years. But you didn't think that is the only dating method out there, did you?

Now lets take into account the biased presuppositions all dating processes involve...

So I'm assuming that since you feel comfortable saying that, you've spent a fair bit of time studying geochemistry and all of the methods, and as a result are able to discuss them in depth. So please...let's see your argument.

 

[StanJ]

Do you have any actual evidence that supports your version of history? Something specific from NASA maybe?

[/QUOTE]It's not my version River, but as you obviously have the means, go look for yourself. I found it easily enough on NASA and Boeing websites.
It begs the question though... why ask if you don't know? Me thinks you just like to be contrary.

 

[River Jordan]

It's not my version River, but as you obviously have the means, go look for yourself. I found it easily enough on NASA and Boeing websites.
It begs the question though... why ask if you don't know? Me thinks you just like to be contrary.

Where on any of those sites does it say that NASA was concerned the manned landers would encounter really thick layers of dust? Don't commit the same error justaname did and make an outrageous claim, and then demand everyone else do the work to support it.

BTW, didn't you notice that creation.com lists the moon-dust argument on their "Arguments we think creationists should not use" page?

"For a long time, creationists claimed that the dust layer on the moon was too thin if dust had truly been falling on it for billions of years. They based this claim on early estimates—by evolutionists—of the influx of moon dust, and worries that the moon landers would sink into this dust layer. But these early estimates were wrong, and by the time of the Apollo landings, NASA was not worried about sinking. So the dust layer thickness can’t be used as proof of a young moon (or of an old one either)."

AnswersinGenesis says the same thing...

"The moon-dust argument was easy to understand and explain. Nevertheless, it has been found to be an invalid arugment for creationists."

Let it go dude. Like I said the first time, it's a stupid argument that only makes Christians look equally stupid.