Dust to Dust

https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/2025/05/dust-to-dust.html

I was recently reminded of this article from a creationist blog published in 1993. To me, the title is most telling. A giveaway.

What does it give away?

It gives away the fact that to creationists, truth does not matter.

"No longer useful"

No longer useful for what? For determining the truth?

Or no longer useful as propaganda for creationism?

The fact that the headline has not been changed since 1993 speaks volumes.

So does the fact that it still links to the original article, the first part of which still gives the impression that the depth of dust on the moon presents a problem for normal people. Written by that notoriously two-faced doctor, Andrew Snelling and 'creation research graduate student' (*snorkle*), Dave Rush. 

The article makes pathetic attempts to shift the blame for their blunder to "uniformitarians".

In case the image is not readable for you, I have copied the text of the article below the line.
________________________________________________________

This article is from Creation 15(4):22, September 1993 

Moon-dust argument no longer useful

For years, a common and apparently valid argument for a recent creation was to use uniformitarian assumptions to argue that the amount of dust on the moon was less than 10,000 years’ worth.

In an important paper, geologist Dr Andrew Snelling from Australia’s Creation Science Foundation [now Creation Ministries International], and former Institute for Creation Research graduate student Dave Rush, have examined in minute detail all the evidence relating to this argument.1 They have shown that:

1) The amount of dust coming annually on to the earth/moon is much smaller than the amount estimated by (noncreationists) Pettersson, on which the argument is usually based.

2) Uniformitarian assumptions cannot therefore justifiably be turned against evolutionists to argue for a young age.

3) Most NASA scientists, in fact, were convinced before the Apollo landings that there was not much dust likely to be found there.

See also https://creationwiki.org/Arguments_creationists_should_not_use