Moon dust?

This is an old creationist argument. Most think that it is debunked, I don’t. In fact my approach to this will be different because I will be using known facts about this, and a different approach. And yes this will resurrect a evolutionist nightmare argument. Their first attempt to discredit this will be to call everyone stupid for even discussing it. Which basically means, they cannot really debunk it. Basic rule of thumb in debates with evolutionist is: When they start calling you names, it means they have nothing left to debate against your argument. It also means: The creationist just won the debate. It used to bother me, until I figured this out. So now I laugh when it happens. But let’s get down to business with discussing the resurrection of the Moon Dust Theory.

The earth just orbits the sun. The moon on the other hand, orbits our planet while “following” the earth’s orbit around the sun. As shown in the picture below:

The moon has gravity, which will attract dust. And the earth has gravity which attracts dust. And while dust is being pulled towards the earth, the moon travels through it as it orbits. But there is more. As the earth orbits the sun, the moon follows it and every orbit is in a new path full of dust. So basically, the moon is like a windshield wiper on a car. What your windshield collects, the wiper bunches it up and wipes it off. Now imagine that all the water your wiper wiped off actually stuck to your wiper, like dust sticks to the moon because of gravity. How long would it be, as you drive through a storm, that there would be so much water on your windshield that you could no longer drive?

Another example: You go and buy a duster. The dust on your furniture represents dust in space. Now does you duster collect more dust “moving” across your furniture (like the moon orbits the earth), or if it stays in one place and waits for the dust to come to it?

You see the moon traveling through space that is full of dust, where every orbit is like passing through a rain storm of dust that “never” quits. The dust is attracted to it because of it’s gravity. Then even more is pulled into it’s path because of the earth’s gravity. But that’s not all. The sun’s gravity pulls even more dust from further away, And that dust also gets pulled into the moon’s path as it orbits our planet. And because the moon acts like a dust wiper as it orbits the planet, not as much dust is going to reach earth because of that. Why? The earth travels through the path of each orbit of the moon where the moon just cleared a path of dust.

Now because the moon takes a little over 27 days to make one complete orbit, and you take that and divide into four points (quarters) of the moons orbit. It would mean that it takes roughly 7 days to move 1/4 of it’s orbit. Which means that for 3-7 days the moon is directly in the path of the earth’s orbit of the sun. While there it would be collecting dust that would usually end up on the earth if the moon were not there. So for 3-7 days, the dust flow to the earth, from it’s orbit around the sun, is disrupted by the moon. And you times that times the supposed age of the moon (4.5 billion years) and you get 13.5-31.5 billion days of dust the moon blocks from our planet. Divide that by 365 and you get how many years of dust were block from our planet.

But there is more. While the earth is in between the sun and moon (moon being on the dark side of the earth), you have two objects pulling dust in the same direction of the moon. And the moons gravity, in this instance for 3-7 days, will collect even more dust. This is because dust caught in gravity from “3” different objects (earth, sun and moon) all pulling in one direction, would move the dust much faster then normal to the surface of the moon.

And there is more. If we go back in time, as far back as the old earthers say (4 billion years ago). Our solar system would have been full of even more dust. Why? Think about it. Everything in this system is just forming, and becoming orderly. So chaos would dictate collisions, explosions, etc… Which equals more debris within our system. More for the moon to catch as it orbits.

So can we calculate the dust on the moon by the dust that reaches earth? Nope. To many variables and factors to add in. All pointing to more dust not less for the claimed age of the moon and earth. But there’s more… To make the math easy, we will say the moon orbits the earth once a month. That’s 12 times a year. 12 billion times in 1 billion years. 48 billion times in 4 billion years. And 54 billion times in 4.5 billion years (the claimed age of the moon). Now do you think with 54,000,000,000 (54 billion) orbits that there is only going to be less than 4 inches of dust?

Some examples of the old arguments:

Was NASA expecting a lot of dust when they landed for the first time on the moon? See what you think.

Why make the ladder to short unless you are expecting some sinking because of dust? Need more? Why make the feet on the ends of the legs on the module wide?

You make them wide when you expect to sink in the dust, and you don’t want to sink to much. Example: When there has been several feet of snow, do you where regular shoes and sink, or snow shoes and stay on top?

And I could go on and on with things where NASA thought there was several feet of dust, where this was actually written in a school text book at one time. So basically all of this effort was to save face on what the old earthers were wrong about then, and in my opinion, still wrong about now.

Side note: Even with all the tests NASA did, none of their tests can be done while simulating the difference between an object that has gravity, and collects dust. And one that does not have gravity and collects dust. Neither can they simulate objects caught in the gravity area of other objects and how that effects dust collection. Basically, NASA did tests that could not simulate all the variables that exist. So their conclusions are off by those variables by several degrees.

Example: Let’s say dust travels through space at one mile per hour. Getting caught in a planet or star’s gravity it’s speed can increase to 3 MPH. What that means is that dust collection on the moon could different as much as a factor of 3. And when caught in 3 different gravity sources, the speed of travel could increase even more.

To say that NASA’s test were accurate is to say that gravity has no effect on how dust moves through space. And if you try to gauge that on a planet that has an atmosphere, then you are adding a variable that does not exist in space. Also, if there was not that much dust being collected, this much damage would not have been done to one of the windows of the shuttle.

It is severely scratched from all of the dust in space. How does it become scratched by dust? The shuttle travels at over a thousand miles per hour to maintain an orbit. At that speed, dust can do this to glass. This is to also illustrate just how much dust is out in space. Just think how much worse that damage could be if the shuttle had simulated gravity pulling more dust to it as it orbits.

The difference of one object having gravity pulling dust to it, and one that does not. Is illustrated for better understanding with this picture:

To sum it up:
1) We have test collections of dust on earth that adds variables that do not exist in space.
2) We have tests using satellites, that cannot simulate gravity that would make it a real world test.
3) We have a moon that follows our planet as it orbits the sun, insuring that each orbit is in a “new” path of dust. Making the dust collection a constant feed.
4) When the moon is in the right position, where the earth is between it and the sun. The gravity of three objects (earth sun and moon) are now pulling more dust to the moon because in this position, the three objects are pulling dust in the same direction as our sun (the strongest gravity pull in our solar system). If this did not make a difference, then the orbits of the earth and moon would be a perfect circle. But because gravity of other objects aligned creates more pull, the orbits of the earth and moon are anything but a perfect circle. So the speed of dust being pulled to the moon increases.
5) We have 54 billion orbits through new paths of dust with every orbit, yet only a few inches of dust exist?
6) And then we have the moon’s gravity which makes it like a dust magnet, always pulling more dust to itself as it orbits.

...9
FaceBook feeds

 

Comments Box SVG iconsUsed for the like, share, comment, and reaction icons

16 hours ago

Ark Encounter
The Living Quarters on Deck Three look so comfortable!

The Living Quarters on Deck Three look so comfortable! ... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

I tried to take a nap but they wouldn’t let me

Love it when I was there in April 2019 and my 3yr old great grand son was so interested in everything he saw. Plan on returning for a family reunion. 😍

Hamm has got the best living quarters.

Loved it there when we went.

Y’all do remember they were in a flood for 40 days......Meaning not a smooth ride so that means no comfort

Hermosísimo 👏 Si aún no lo has visitado, no te demores es mejor y superior q disney para pasear con la familia y crecer en sabiduría ‼️

Beautiful ❤...just voted for Ark Encounter

Kelsi St John

Cool

One of the beautiful rooms on THE ARK.

I loved this section of the Ark!

Amy Engelbrecht Ott we've been there!!! Our little road trip was so much fun! Looking forward to 2020 Trip

Is that a true replica? Or a modern version of how it might have been?!!

They are gorgeous!

Beautiful and very edifying park! Breathtaking! And the buffet is incredible! We had the very best pot roast ever!

Comfort came when that flood stopped not because they had a cushion on board

View more comments

20 hours ago

YecHeadquarters
10 million still up for grabs. No one can do it because evolution is not true. ~ Issac 

Quote: Was Life a “Happy Chemical Accident”???
(How a careless remark by Richard Dawkins on NPR led to the largest Origin Of Life prize in history)

In 2005 I heard Richard Dawkins on NPR radio station WBUR Boston. A caller asked where life came from.

“Life was a happy chemical accident!” he replied.

Dawkins was an endowed professor of the “Public Understanding of Science” at the University of Oxford.

I was astounded that a professor in charge of “Public understanding of science” would proclaim that life is a “happy chemical accident.”

Is that even a scientific statement? What is science, anyway?

From Online Dictionary:

SCIENCE: 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

If you cannot test it, reproduce it, falsify it, observe it, validate it from first principles, model it, simulate it on a computer or validate it mathematically… then it’s not science!

If life is something that happened literally accidentally, perhaps only once in the history of the entire universe… then in order to accept that theory, we have to abandon the scientific method.

Because none of our experience confirms the hypothesis that *accidental* events create nanomachines, or genetic codes, or cells, or anything similar.

I was so disappointed with these low standards of proof that I created a technology prize to find a definitive answer.

This led to the $10 million Evolution 2.0 Prize for discovering the Origin of the Genetic Code.

I announced the prize at the Royal Society in Great Britain on 31 May, with Oxford professors Denis Noble and Paul Flather.

Denis Noble is one of the professors who reviewed Dawkins’ PhD application at Oxford. He’s 83 and sits on the judging panel for the prize, along with Harvards rock star Geneticist George Church.

Denis is a Fellow of the Royal Society and holds a Commander of the British Empire medal from Queen Elizabeth.

14 years later, I have to thank Richard Dawkins, in part - especially his flippant attitude towards the practice of empirical science - for inspiring me to create this prize.

It’s time for us to put this question on solid scientific footing.

Read the Financial Times story about the $10 million USD Evolution 2.0 Prize here:

www.evo2.org/ft

10 million still up for grabs. No one can do it because evolution is not true. ~ Issac

Quote: Was Life a “Happy Chemical Accident”???
(How a careless remark by Richard Dawkins on NPR led to the largest Origin Of Life prize in history)

In 2005 I heard Richard Dawkins on NPR radio station WBUR Boston. A caller asked where life came from.

“Life was a happy chemical accident!” he replied.

Dawkins was an endowed professor of the “Public Understanding of Science” at the University of Oxford.

I was astounded that a professor in charge of “Public understanding of science” would proclaim that life is a “happy chemical accident.”

Is that even a scientific statement? What is science, anyway?

From Online Dictionary:

SCIENCE: 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

If you cannot test it, reproduce it, falsify it, observe it, validate it from first principles, model it, simulate it on a computer or validate it mathematically… then it’s not science!

If life is something that happened literally accidentally, perhaps only once in the history of the entire universe… then in order to accept that theory, we have to abandon the scientific method.

Because none of our experience confirms the hypothesis that *accidental* events create nanomachines, or genetic codes, or cells, or anything similar.

I was so disappointed with these low standards of proof that I created a technology prize to find a definitive answer.

This led to the $10 million Evolution 2.0 Prize for discovering the Origin of the Genetic Code.

I announced the prize at the Royal Society in Great Britain on 31 May, with Oxford professors Denis Noble and Paul Flather.

Denis Noble is one of the professors who reviewed Dawkins’ PhD application at Oxford. He’s 83 and sits on the judging panel for the prize, along with Harvard's rock star Geneticist George Church.

Denis is a Fellow of the Royal Society and holds a Commander of the British Empire medal from Queen Elizabeth.

14 years later, I have to thank Richard Dawkins, in part - especially his flippant attitude towards the practice of empirical science - for inspiring me to create this prize.

It’s time for us to put this question on solid scientific footing.

Read the Financial Times story about the $10 million USD Evolution 2.0 Prize here:

www.evo2.org/ftWas Life a “Happy Chemical Accident”???
(How a careless remark by Richard Dawkins on NPR led to the largest Origin Of Life prize in history)

In 2005 I heard Richard Dawkins on NPR radio station WBUR Boston. A caller asked where life came from.

“Life was a happy chemical accident!” he replied.

Dawkins was an endowed professor of the “Public Understanding of Science” at the University of Oxford.

I was astounded that a professor in charge of “Public understanding of science” would proclaim that life is a “happy chemical accident.”

Is that even a scientific statement? What is science, anyway?

From Online Dictionary:

SCIENCE: 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

If you cannot test it, reproduce it, falsify it, observe it, validate it from first principles, model it, simulate it on a computer or validate it mathematically… then it’s not science!

If life is something that happened literally accidentally, perhaps only once in the history of the entire universe… then in order to accept that theory, we have to abandon the scientific method.

Because none of our experience confirms the hypothesis that *accidental* events create nanomachines, or genetic codes, or cells, or anything similar.

I was so disappointed with these low standards of proof that I created a technology prize to find a definitive answer.

This led to the $10 million Evolution 2.0 Prize for discovering the Origin of the Genetic Code.

I announced the prize at the Royal Society in Great Britain on 31 May, with Oxford professors Denis Noble and Paul Flather.

Denis Noble is one of the professors who reviewed Dawkins’ PhD application at Oxford. He’s 83 and sits on the judging panel for the prize, along with Harvard's rock star Geneticist George Church.

Denis is a Fellow of the Royal Society and holds a Commander of the British Empire medal from Queen Elizabeth.

14 years later, I have to thank Richard Dawkins, in part - especially his flippant attitude towards the practice of empirical science - for inspiring me to create this prize.

It’s time for us to put this question on solid scientific footing.

Read the Financial Times story about the $10 million USD Evolution 2.0 Prize here:

www.evo2.org/ft
... See MoreSee Less

20 hours ago

Ark Encounter

Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person. Colossians 4:6 ... See MoreSee Less

Never go back to the vomit. Never go back to wallow in the mire! May we never love the very things that nailed our Savior to the cross! 

#Jesus #morethanconquerors #jesusisourhope #Jesusisourvictory #JesusisGod #jesusislord

Never go back to the vomit. Never go back to wallow in the mire! May we never love the very things that nailed our Savior to the cross!

#Jesus #morethanconquerors #JesusIsOurHOPE #JesusisourVictory #JesusIsGod #JesusIsLord
... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. (Romans 7:15) Edited. You will not understand until you know why you keep doing what you do not want to do. Romans will help you understand.

Amen

Amen!🙌 And don't let anyone try to convince you to go back as well. Stand your ground and stay close to Jesus, our True Deliverer.🙌❤

Great post and message. Needed that! Love yall

Amen 🙏🏽

Unfortunately that’s easier said than done sometimes, especially if it’s a habit you’ve had forever.

Amen So True.

Amen!!!

Truth bomb right there.

What a terrifying thing it would be to fall from Gods grace.

Reminds me of some songs. Jesus Lover of My Soul, Came to My Rescue, Victory in Jesus, and so many others. We praise, worship and sing because He came to our rescue so that we can spend eternity with Him. God is Great and Good! 😎

Seem this all to often sadly 😢😢😢

Amen 🙏

Praise our jesus. Isn't he fabulous.

Very True! And frightening if you do!!!

View more comments

Pro Bowl quarterback Aaron Rodgers smears the God of the Bible on a recent podcast show with Danica Patrick.

Can you be a Christian and deny that the Bible is the Word of God?
... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

Stephen Cates

Trick perspective, God put his son on the cross to give you the way to heaven. Anyone who goes to hell, chose it.

He has been a fake Christian for a long time now.

I have no recollection of Rodgers ever making a born again profession of faith.

Deny Jesus or His Words can't be a Christian

He isn't a Christian

The issue isn't why would a loving God choose to send people to Hell. The issue is why would people choose Hell over a loving God.

He who denies me I will deny before my father and all the angels in Heaven!

View more comments

2 days ago

YecHeadquarters
Scare tactics science. its no more about science truth, or even theories. But how we can scare you into paying more money for things we come up with that will save the planet.😂 Just send 99 dollars to NASA and get our nuke shield clothing today. And for an extra 50 bucks, will build an air cleaner that will stop climate. But you can have a smaller version of this for free with your donation. Send today before the earth ends,

Stayed tuned while we come up with the fix for deadly viruses. Just send more money or we will scare the pants off you. ~ Issac

Scare tactics science. it's no more about science truth, or even theories. But how we can scare you into paying more money for things we come up with that will save the planet.😂 Just send 99 dollars to NASA and get our nuke shield clothing today. And for an extra 50 bucks, will build an air cleaner that will stop climate. But you can have a smaller version of this for free with your donation. Send today before the earth ends,

Stayed tuned while we come up with the fix for deadly viruses. Just send more money or we will scare the pants off you. ~ Issac
... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

But wait! .....There’s more! 😁 For just $19.95 you can purchase a cow flatulence filter now too! 🐄🎉

what is doom's day clock???

Amen to that! 

#evangelize #sharethetruth #sharethegospel #Jesussaves #JesusisGod #followJesus

Amen to that!

#Evangelize #ShareTheTruth #sharethegospel #JesusSaves #JesusIsGod #FollowJesus
... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

Agreed

👍🏼👍🏼‼️

Amen!

Hey Chad, been listening to your radio show...liking it,bro! 😀 😀 😀

1 week ago

Hidden History of Evolution

**7 games the militant atheists play**

Learn what they are so you do not get caught up in them ~ Issac
... See MoreSee Less

1 week ago

Science leads to God

**7 games the militant atheists play**

Learn what they are so you do not get caught up in them ~ Issac
... See MoreSee Less

2 weeks ago

Hidden History of Evolution
LOL, now thats funny. And for most atheists that would be worse than burning. ~ Issac

LOL, now that's funny. And for most atheists that would be worse than burning. ~ IssacLOL, now that's funny. And for most atheists that would be worse than burning. ~ Issac ... See MoreSee Less