s64421@zeus.usq.EDU.AU (house ron) (11/09/90)
rjn@hpfcso.HP.COM (Bob Niland) writes: >re: > Creationists around here are claiming that before the moon shots, > > scientists were worried about the space craft sinking in metres of > > dust which they thought should have accumulated since the moon was > > formed. As we know, very little dust was there, and they say this is > > proof that the moon is only six thousand years old. >They already brush off the abundant terrestrial evidence for a much older >earth. This implies that evidence supporting creationism is "authentic", >but evidence supporting the scientific model is the "work of the devil". >What makes you think that anything you might have to say about lunar >evidence would sway them in the least? Before bothering to prepare counter >arguments, make sure you first come to agreement with them on fundamentals, >like the meaning of words, and rules of logic and evidence. What are they >prepared to accept as disproof of their position? (probably nothing) I suspect you are right - nothing I say will change their minds. Someone else pointed out the vacuum welding effect. If the moon dust had been there, they would say "AHA! not enough time for vacuum welding to take place!" >Short quiz on the age of the universe: > * Look up in the night sky. > * How far away are the most distant objects? > * What is the speed of light? > * How long did it take that light to get here? >Case closed, unless they want to argue that [god/devil] planted that light >in mid-course 6000 years ago, in which case ALL evidence is suspect, no one >can be sure of anything and debate is a waste of time. I have said this very thing to them, and it got me nowhere. -- Regards, Ron House. (s64421@zeus.usq.edu.au) (By post: Info Tech, U.C.S.Q. Toowoomba. Australia. 4350)