Er, I don't actually believe that.. I'm just referencing this specific propogandist strip:

http://www.chick.com/catalog/comics/0106.asp

I don't even know how to comment on this whole site, let alone the specific strip I'm linking to. Anyways, according to this guy, 14,300,000 tons of meteoritic dust falls onto the Earth each year and the same amount onto the moon. Therefore, in 5 billion years, the moon would be 137 feet deep in dust. Because Neil Armstrong's footprint only went into 1/8 inches of dust when he landed on the moon, that of course must mean the planet is new and no more than 10,000 years old in accordance with the bible.

What a ton of balogne.

I think people can believe what they want, but I hate when they try to discredit what other things with half-truths and rotten facts. A very under-handed tactic and spineless way to "convert" people, IMO.

Ah, Jack Chick, my favorite comic.

hehehe, my favorite was the erosion of the soil. This guy does not understand erosion rates at all does he?

_________________
"I am not conceited, i'm perfect"
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." by Dan Sandler 2002

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2002-11-10 19:08 ]</font>

Actually, if you use erosion rates *only,* then, yes, the world couldn't be much more than 100,000 years old. At observed rates of erosion, in another 100,000 years, the Alps, Himalayas, Rockies, and Andes would all be ground right down to sea level.

Only when you factor in mountain-building processes, which weren't really well-known until very recently, do you bypass this critical problem in the age of the earth.

(Volcanoes don't work; they produce the wrong kind of rock, and too slowly.)

re the Moon, my *guess* would be that, over time, the dust compacts into a more and more solid kind of substance. Is that even close to correct?

Silas

The moon is 4 billion years old, and there is little doubt to that. There is absolutely NO possible way the moon could be 10,000 yrs old and have as many craters as it does (plus much more evidence).

The cartoons are cool though. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

__________________
The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once.
--Albert Einstein

Of course, if you use the wrong numbers you can get whatever answer you want. Here's the real story from the sainted talkorigins archive:

Thanks to our very own Tim Thompson!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JS Princeton on 2002-11-10 21:14 ]</font>

&lt;a name="20021110"> page 20021110 aka 20021110
On 2002-11-10 18:27, GrapesOfWrath wrote: To? 1 HUb'
Anyway? I rather agree with the concept of
saying something like
Durring the Devonian Period ??/
"EARTH ROCK DEPOSITS" acumulated at a rate
{ i do not know the rate of deposition }
{{ I have used numbers like 20 feet per 2000 years}}
click here to get 500 feet in 100 million years
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...;0#2-11-10.GC5

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HUb' on 2002-11-11 00:09 ]</font>

Ahh but acording to them those processes were created by satan to trick us!!!

One good example or erosion is to show them the canadian shield. It is made up of some of the oldest rocks on earth (that can be reached relatively easily). I think they are a few billion years old. Aslo show them satleite pics of the hawaiian island chain and the emperor sea mounts. They are a very good example of slow erosion in action.

Finmally, if the earth eas eroding so fast why do we still have coastal cities? Why do we have land at all? Even in 10,000 years at the reat they are suggesting the continents would be tottaly flat and be nearly gone.

__________________
GIYUL :-)
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." - Dan Sandler 2002

LOL! I remember reading this comic back when I was in elementary school. This thing is so-o-o old!

Hey, I was wondering about a couple things mentioned there, though. It states that a live mollusk was dated to be 3000 years old by the Carbon 14 method, and it states that lava rocks from a volcano that erupted in 1801 were dated to be 3 billion years old with the potassium argon method. Does anyone know what that's about?

(I think that the Carbon 14 irregularity is because it doesn't work on living organisms, but I'm not sure.)

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

When you have to argue with somebody who believes that mammoths were flash-frozen, that micro-evolution is cool but macroevolution is impossible; that moon dust proves the earth is young; that erosional rates are too high for an old earth; that sedimentary rates are too low; any of that kind of stuff...just go straight to http://www.talkorigins.org and browse around. You'll be glad you did.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...253/hovind.htm
Not entirely sure, but it sounds like this humongous PDF 32-page paper by Andrew Snelling, explaining the anomalous potassium-argon readings in certain kinds of andesite (short version--it's a chemistry thing, some andesite has more argon in it to begin with, so it's gonna mess up your dates), is put to the service of proving the Young Earth Thesis. He seems to be saying that his lava samples prove that the Earth is only 6000 years old. Somebody else wanna go read it? His conclusions are on page 27, and there's a bunch of data on page 13.
http://www.ucglive.com/noah/Binders/...Ar%20dates.pdf

I'm guessing that the "1801 Hualalai basalt, Hawaii" on page 13 is what's being referred to, but I'm finding this whole thing very confusing, so I will stop while I'm ahead.

<a name="2-11-10.OH"> page 2-11-10.OH aka Origional Horizantality
On 2002-11-10 22:07, g99 wrote:
OH, sure when i first heard J.Allen say
"Origional Horizontality" i could have jumped right up
and run up and socked him one.. having been raised on
a mountain top, I knew full well (there were "ALWAYS" Mountians }
{{ from day 1 }}
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...&0#2-11-10.GC5
click that to get the 500 feet in 100 my's
or skip it..
My pint here, is that suppose I assume
500 feet devided over 100 yealds 5 feet
per million years on average
and for sake of contriversy i'll include
DUST {HERE} from the TONS of it falling to
EARTH each year from the sources given in links above
& below..
1
2
3
well i'll just leav the idea hanging for now and exit

ahh? the very idea.. to me its the same as saying that rocks {from the Moon} Minted 4.5by ago Were Minted on the Moon at the time: addEMda How Old do the tests show rover to B ? OR NOT

Radiometric dating works. The "issues" that creationists have with it are most often taken out of context. This is true with both the 14 C dating and the K/Ar dating mentioned in the glurge from Chick. The K/Ar dating was used to date xenolyths which are foreign rock species and therefore are NOT a measure of the flow's age but rather closer to the consitutent rock's age.

Mollusks use carbon from a variety of sources to build their shells. It is to be expected that some of these sources would be old. Dating a mollusk shell with C 14 is an inappropriate method.

Of course, all of this can be found at http://www.talkorigins.org

K/Ar dating can give bad dates if Argon was still trapped in the molten rock or if the rock hadn't melted completely. Air bubbles during solidification can also contribute to anamolous ages. This is why much care is taken during sampling and why other dating methods with other isotopes are used to confirm ages (ie: Rb/Sr). As stated before C14 is not an appropriate dating technique for aquatic life.

The creationist, so far, hasn't really addressed why if the moon is 10k years, do we have lunar rock dating over 4 billion years old.

__________________
If you're not part of the solution then you're part of the precipitate.

I also notice that all references are old (the Science paper quoted is from 1963). That is another usual creationist trick: to take some obsolete/superceded research as try to pass it off as state of the art.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: oskorei on 2002-11-11 08:55 ]</font>

Yeah, but also keep in mind the date of this comic - 1976, right? Like I said, it is old.

Thanks for the info on the dating techniques (I know, everyone says to just look up the Talk Origins sight, but you know, that involves a lot of surfing to find exactly what you are looking for, and I seem to be "surfer"-challenged!).

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

Another problem with dating lava rocks is that they can start to solifiy inside the volcano. IF it is near the surface or in a cool spot in the volcano, it can solidify then and the force of the eruption can bring it up. Also the volcano can be bringing up pieces of cone from a previous eruption. So a very old age for the eruption is possible. Than again one thing i noticed is that they mentioned that the rocks came from hawaii. unless i am mistaken hawaii is on a hot spot and is onlt a few (tens?) million years old, not the billions they say.

__________________
GIYUL :-)
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." - Dan Sandler 2002

Haven't even most Creationists (the relatively honest ones at least) rejected the moon dust claim due to its overwhelming flaws?

Nebularain, try the index page at TalkOrigins. I generally find it to be the most helpful when I'm looking for something. For example, here's their Moon dust page, found in seconds on that page. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html

(D'oh! Just noticed JS posted it above. I didn't see it the first time. Oh, well. Doesn't hurt to repost it. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img])
_________________
<font size="-1">PLEASE NOTE: Some quantum physics theories suggest that when the consumer is not directly observing this product, it may cease to exist or will exist only in a vague and undetermined state.</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Hall on 2002-11-11 17:27 ]</font>

Here's the volcanic rock claim too.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-.../age.html#k-ar

Scroll up for a couple of more general statements on radiometric dating.

And yes, everything I've heard about C-14 is that it's only useful for non-living tissues, because living tissue continually collects C-14, and it only starts decaying once the biological processes have stopped. So that shellfish is right out.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

BTW, it sure is a bit strange. I discovered (actually re-discovered) the Jack Chick stuff myself only last week. I ran across this page that criticizes/pokes fun at them. The one at the bottom, "Big Daddy", is more of the same tripe. Unfortunately, the image links on that page all seem to be broken, but you can find the originals on the Jack Chick page itself.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere