The moon dust argument has come and gone and it has been quite telling Paul having it as his signature :-)

The short form of the argument

http://godandscience.org/youngearth/dust.html

Errors: faulty assumptions, faulty data, avoidance of data that refutes the position.

What is interesting is that young creationist groups actually distance themselves from this exact argument because they concede it is wrong

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use

Quote:

Arguments that should never be used
1.Moon dust thickness proves a young moon.
2.The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall. (If so, how could Adam and Eve have eaten and digested their food that they were told to eat before the Fall?)
3.NASA computers, in calculating the positions of planets, found a missing day and 40 minutes, proving Joshua’s “long day” (Joshua 10) and Hezekiah’s sundial movement (2 Kings 20).
4.There are no beneficial mutations.
5.Darwin recanted on his deathbed.
6.Woolly mammoths were flash frozen during the Flood catastrophe.
7.If we evolved from apes, apes shouldn’t exist today. (In an evolutionary worldview, mankind did not evolve from apes but from an apelike ancestor, from which both humans and apes of today supposedly evolved.)
8.No new species have been produced.
9.Ron Wyatt has found much archeological proof of the Bible.


So what does that say Paul, you are at odds with even others who believe and accept young earth creation :-)

I guess their disagreement with you is pretty much for the same reason as science

Quote:

Why should a Christian ministry maintain a list of arguments creationists should avoid? As a ministry, we want to honor God and represent Christ well when we defend His Word. This means using honest, intellectually sound arguments that are based in Scripture, logic, and scientific research. Because there are so many good arguments for a recent creation (which the Bible clearly teaches), we have no need to grasp at straws—arguments using questionable logic and tenuous or no evidence. Answers in Genesis is not willing to distort evidence or resort to bad logic to defend the Bible.


It's called honesty and integrity qualities you could use more of.

Science and young creationist disagreeing with you Paul must be a conspiracy right?

Last edited by Orac; 12/30/12 03:03 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.