That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear. Luke 1:74
Number of moons
How far away is our moon?
238,712 miles (center to center) or 384,090 km. Light travel time of 1.3 seconds. It takes a 3 day trip for the Apollo Astronauts. At 60 mph, the trip would take 5 1/2 months which would be equal to ten trips around the world. The moon is also the only other planet that man has visited.
Then we have the moon dust particles.
Before we went to the moon it was predicted how much dust would be there. Some fantastic formula was worked out and everybody got excited. Because this was supposed to determine how old the moon was and leave those in favor of Young Earth creation red faced. But God is always true to his word. Instead of the dust being several feet as predicted, it only was a few inches! Which went along with the creation model. This left science and the old earth believing people red faced. So they decided to fix the problem. They said that the person (Pettersson) who came up with the formula was all wrong(can you guess what they did next?). They rework the formula. And guess what? It now conforms to what they have been pushing all along, the earth is old. And so is the moon. They say that they proved this by gathering information from satellites etc... I have a couple of questions for those who believe the first prediction was wrong.
1) How did this wrong formulation(prediction) just happen to hit perfect with the creation model on the earth being young? It should have missed on both counts by a far margin if the formulation was totally off like science claims it was.
2) What are the odds of this formulation being correct on any count (old or young earth) if it was off in the first place? Opinion: Also remember that the person that made the first formula, for the amount of dust, had never been on the moon. Man had not been on the moon. This makes the odds even more far fetch that He could even come close to the correct amount. Or that he could have fixed the formula to look like a young earth. All these varibles makes his (Pettersson's) formula the correct formula in my book. The odds would be like playing the lotto for the rest of your life, and winning every-time you played. The winning numbers of the lotto are unknown, and the amount of dust was unknown. But Petterson got it right. You figure it out.
3) And what are the possibilities of this ending up to support old earth after being reworked? I smell a cover up.
If Young Earth Creation believers had pulled a stunt like this, foul would have been called from every corner of the earth by scientists from every walk of life. The term "liar" would have been close behind. But we are supposed to trust the information scientists say came from those satellites that collected the data that corrected a supposed error. But because the Old Earthers control all data that comes from the satellites we will never know.
Why do the Old Earthers(any one who believes the earth is million or billions of years old) control the data that comes from the satellites? Why are not Young Earthers(those who believe the earth is around 6 thousand years old) allowed to use the same equipment? Old Earth science cannot have any Young Earth scientists messing up their data or their belief in an Old Earth. So they are made to look like quacks all because of their one belief. A Young Earth! Any scientific organization that is run by Old Earthers(which is all that have access to this equipment), will not hire a Young Earth believing scientist. This in it self shows the bias that science has that they claim is not there. They say it's a figment of our imagination.
Influx Estimate (tons/year)
Ni in atmospheric dust
Barker and Anders (1968)
Ir and Os in deep-sea sediments
Ir in Antarctic ice
Kyte and Wasson (1982)
Ir in deep-sea sediments
Satellite, radar, visual
Satellite, radar, visual
Singer and Bandermann (1967)
Al26 in deep-sea sediments
Satellite, radar, visual
Fragmentation of Apollo asteroids
Grün et al. (1985)
Satellite data particularly
Radar data primarily
Maurette et al. (1987)
Dust from melting Greenland ice
Tuncel and Zoller (1987)
Ir in Antarctic atmospheric particulates
Maurette et al. (1991)
Dust from melting Antarctic ice
This is a graph of how many times this experiment was attempted. Notice how the numbers get smaller in each case where only one group of scientists could ever do the experiment (in other words, could not be checked and retest by the average scientist). These also more coincide with science's conclusion for the age of the earth. Even though the first experiments supported a young earth.... Makes you wonder why this was attempted so many times and was abandoned as soon as they got close to the age answers they were looking for. In my opinion, science can't accept truth of their experiments when they support a young earth. And that they would have to explain why the tests were done so many times and why was their findings always different. If the moon dust theory is even brought up in scientific circles, it is more or less laughed off as some kind of hoax.
To get people to believe a lie, it first has to be testable. All their frail attempts at coming up with something testable failed. Just as Hitler once said: If you tell a lie long enough and loud enough, people will soon start to believe it. And they are more incline to believe a big lie than a small one... I think this one got way to big in it's cover up that just explaining the cover up would produce to many more lies that holes could be shot through even in the dark by a blind person.
Though I do not agree with all that ICR believes. They have a very intensive study on the moon dust theory. This web page is very technical. You can read about this here: http://www.icr.org/research/as/drsnelling7.html As you will notice that even all through this technical article, no real conclusion is ever reached. Only an opinion.
Need more info?
The sun is constantly bombarding our solar system with particles. These particles, plus the particles from collisions, keep our solar system full of dust. Just to show you how much needs to be produced to achieve this, as science would claim. Let's ponder a simple example:
Let's say we have only a sun in our solar system, and it's gravity can reach 1 billion miles into space. Let's say that for 1 billion miles, our solar system has dust. Let's also apply that dust can average one mile per hour speed in space while gravity pull upon it. So we have 1 billion miles of dust, moving one mile per hour to a center point of gravity (the sun). How long would it take for all the dust to meet at this center point, which would leave no more dust in out solar system? There is 24 hours in a day, 365 days in a year, so devide this into 1 billion miles, and you have how many years it would take to remove all the dust from our solar system.
Now add nine planets, and all ther moons to pull dust upon them. And have them travel through the solar system, and like a dust magnet, sweep up dust as they orbit around the sun. So now ponder how much would have to be produced by the sun, and collisions, to keep our solar system full of dust for billions of years. In fact, the sun would have to throw so much particles into space to keep it full of dust to where we are at now, and maintain it. That we would not be able to see the light of the sun due to all the particles blocking it's light.
But for a solar system much younger, this would be no problem.
Now we go back to the moon dust subject. Since science would claim that dust is more or less a constant in our solar system. This proves, even more that there is more than enough dust, that any planet, or moon with no atmosphere should have several feet, if not a mile of dust after several billion years. Dust that does not deplete, continues to collect on every moon and planet with no atmosphere. And this, just like so many claims from science, is just science trying to get evidence to support old earth, when there was never really any truth to what was claimed.