As one state wanted to paste on biology textbooks, "No one was present at the beginning of time." That is then used as a platform from which to attack evolution. However, that argument leads one down the road of strict empiricism. And that inevitably leads to David Hume. Or, in layman's terms, the fact that there is not really any observational evidence that proves causality. That statement destroys all science. But it also wrecks the principle of religious faith. If I cannot believe that flicking the lightswitch turns on the lights, how can I possibly believe in a god?

To bypass that argument, most people take the Kantian approach. Longwinded explanations aside, it says that observational processes CAN be taken as proof of causality. That means that, even though no one has ever been to Alpha Centauri to study it directly, we can still prove certain facts about it by making what remote observations we can and applying that data to our hypothesis.

At any rate, I want to prove I can quote too. So hold on to your hats, everyone!

"Calculus and the laws of gravitation and kinetic energy have been around for centuries. Maxwell was late 19th century. And as for Astrophysics, irrelevant. That's just simply the law of kinetic gasses."

Certainly. Unfortunately, one of the basic assumptions of these calculations were quite wrong. They were dependant on most of the angular momentum of the solar system being in the sun, when in fact most of it is in the gas giants. A pattern that so far seems to hold true for the other planetary systems discovered.

"Ah, but then, who defines humanity? (Rhetorical question.)"

Not so. It is in fact an extremely timely and relavent question. On the future science front, we are probably not more than 50 years away from self-aware machines. If and when that day comes, will these machines be human? Of course, TNG already answered that question.

"It's not that much of a difference scientifically between believing that God, a non-corporeal entity, concieved Jesus' earthly body within a virgin (which they heavily emphasize) and to believe that He created the entire universe."

But both of those statements are clearly religious in nature, and hence are not applicable to an argument about the science of evolution or creation. If creation is truly a scientific process, then it must be able to stand alone, apart from any religious context. If it rests on a religious basis, teaching it means teaching the religion, and it has no place in a public school setting.

"The decaying body of a pleasaur that had been dead for about a month was found off the east coast of New Zealand by a Japanese fishing boat."

Complete fiction. For one, you already start out by assuming that it is a "pleasaur" without any evidence to that nature. What was actually found was an organic mass of unknown origin. Could it be a creature long thought extinct? Sure. But that's quite a long way from a fact.

"As for Neanderthals, Heidelberg man, Cro-Magnon man, and such: they're still around, too. The remains that were found were later confirmed to be those of humans with extreme arthritis and/or rickets (such as that caused by extreme old age, say in the neighborhood of 800 or so : ))."

For one thing, Cro-Magnon man is not a seperate species or subspecies, but a specific group of people in a certain geographic and temporal region.

As for the rickets thing, that's been mentioned time and again by creationists, but where is their evidence? Sources? Anything? And how does advanced age cause pronounced brow ridges, fundamental shifts in skull structure, and a larger brain case?

"And the Earth is young."

Again, you state this as a qualifying fact from which your evidence flows. That isn't how science works.

"There are several dozen different ways of dating an object. One says a certain rock is two billion years old, another, six billion, another twelve billion. Almost all of the rest date the rock as being about 6000 years old (+- a couple millenia). You only hear about the ones that give the age evolutionary scientists want to think the rocks are."

It seems odd that every dating system save the one or two that support your claims are "false." Far more likely that the majority of methods, which tend to agree on an age of the Earth in the vicinity of 4 or 5 billion years, are the correct ones.

Also, you claim that scientists jump to conclusions with a variety of different fossils. But what you fail to mention is that each and every case, (Save your example of archeopteryx, which is backed up by no reliable data I am aware of.) it was other scientists that disproved such leaps of logic. You seem to want to use science to attack it, but then discard it when it disagrees with you. That's rather paradoxical.

Science is constantly evolving. New evidence and new theories are always being debated, argued over, and eventually either accepted or disgarded. Scientists make discovers that fly in the face of earlier theories all the time. There is not a "mass conspiricy" of science trying to delude and confuse people. As creationists are fond of saying, many scientists are themselves religious.

My statement about who defines Humanity was intended toward Christians who attempt to harmonize the Bible with Evolution, in relation to my earlier argument, also directed toward said Christians, involving the inherant contradiction between the two beliefs (If Humanity evolved, then death existed before we did, therefore death is not a result of mankind's sin, therefore there is no evidence that sin exists, therefore Christ's death meant nothing, which is contradictory to basic Christian beliefs.).

In relation to Maxwell's calculations, that was the point his calculations prooved. Most of the system's angular momentum is in the planets, but if it condensed from a gas cloud, then most of the angular momentum should be in the Sun.

In relation to Mary, mother of Jesus, that was a religious point which, re-reading 1st of 2's message, may not apply. I misread. I seem to have assumed that if he agreed with the Catholic interpretation of Eden, then he would agree with the rest of their doctrine. In that case, my statement would apply to him quite well. Of course, as I said, I misread, and I apologize for any confusion.

In relation to the dating systems, I can't seem to tell what you're talking about. I'm saying that out of the dozens of different dating methods, four or five at most give an age for the Earth in the billions of years. You seem to think that I said the opposite: that out of the dozens of different methods, only a few agree with me, but that I think that all the rest are wrong. Thus, it would seem more logical to believe that, since most dating methods tend to agree with me, that they give the more correct age. As I said before, please create a seperate thread to continue the discussion of the age of the Earth or the universe.

Yes, scientists disprooved it, but the point is that some scientists jumped to conclusions that supported their on theories based on insufficient evidence. And as I said, Creationists may have done similar things. I'm not here to argue about the character of certain scientists. And my original point still stands that you can not produce any fossil remains that can be taken as evidence of Evolution.

I never said anything about a mass conspiracy. Only that on occasion, a scientist has deliberately withheld evidence that shows that what they have found is not evidence of what they personally believe.

And as for Archaeopteryx, do you mean that my claim is not backed by reliable evidence, or that Archaeopteryx it self is not?

OK, you have a point about me stating my conclusion, then the evidence supporting it. Perhaps I should state that a Japanese fishing boat hauled aboard a decaying carcas of a reptillian creature with four flippers, a long neck with vertebre, and that had been dead for about a month. Then I should have stated that there are five photographs and the eye-witness accounts of the entire crew to support this, and that the only known creature that fits this description is the pleasaur. Is that better? (I'm not trying to be sarcastic. My explanation was flawed, and I'm trying to correct it.) And I also should make similar changes to my statement about the Earth's age (maybe "I believe the Earth IS young."?). My apologies again. My explanitory skills obviously leave much to be desired.

You sure you're talking about Neanderthal? Doesn't fit what I know about them.

------------------
HMS White Star (your local friendly agent of Chaos:-) )

(GEE, I wish I could see what I'm typing about at the same time I type it, it would make this all so much easier.)

I don't know where you heard about Archaeopteryx being a hoax, however, I have heard this from other sources, and heard it discredited, before. I do not believe there exists a single reliable source of proof for the hoax assertion. (which is what Sol was saying.) I am fairly certain that it's another Creationst-generated, self-perpetuated myth, such as the one that said that Darwin recanted the theory of evolution on his deathbed. (According to his children, who were with him and who had to come forth on more than one occasion to clear up the mess, he didn't.) I would be willing to bet that the same holds true for arthritic neanderthals, and so forth. It is a pity that the fossils of Java and Peking man were destroyed by bombs in WWII, before accurate testing could be done. All that's left for EITHER side from them is speculation.

As to the varying measurements of dating techniques... well of COURSE you're going to get way-off results if you use methods that are inappropriate for dating. For instance, you cannot date rock samples with Carbon-14, just as you cannot date organic samples with Uranium. The same goes for dating metamorphic rock, since, by its very nature, metamorphic rock is changed from what it was. (in fact, many creationists' reports of a young earth were obtained by these somewhat less-than-scientifically ethical measurements. When you KNOW how to fudge the data to get the results you crave, it makes it a lot easier.)

"(If Humanity evolved, then death existed before we did, therefore death is not a result of mankind's sin, therefore there is no evidence that sin exists, therefore Christ's death meant nothing, which is contradictory to basic Christian beliefs.)"

Ah, there's nothing like a string of unprovable assumptions on the way FROM a conclusion, is there? "This disagrees with our basic beliefs, therefore it must be wrong." But as another person who contradicted the basic beliefs of the church said, "Nevertheless, it moves."

This part really is going to require another thread.
However, the answer to the above questions are all "yes." Humanity evolved. Death existed before we did. "Sin" as the Bible defines it does not exist. ( I would here claim, however, that sin of a sort DOES exist, and I define it as "that which hurts others unnecessarily.") And therefore, if you believe literally in the Christ legend, and if he did indeed die on the cross (though the gospel of Simon disputes this, and there are reasons to doubt a great deal of the Christ legend itself) then it was for nothing, or at least, not for the reason it is generally believed to be for. (Which, given the turbulent history of the early Church and the squabbles over which beliefs were canon and not, I would not find surprising at all)

When you check out Ringworld, see if you can find another book called "The Hiram Key." I'd tell you who wrote it, but I forget and my father has my copy. It's interesting.

Well, I can't very well argue this point without using scripture, and I don't appear to have any Christian Thesitic Evolutionists to argue with. It's also irrelevant to the discussion we're having in this thread (there's that darned "i" word again), so again I suggest that we either drop it or move it to another thread. And how can you disproove the historical accuracy of the Bible?

1st of 2:

"...you cannot date rock samples with Carbon-14, just as you cannot date organic samples with Uranium."

Sorry. I think a lot faster than I type, so I went on to a different type of dating without telling anyone. What I meant was that, if the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has changed at any point in history (as it almost certainly has; few things remain constant for long), then the dates given by radiocarbon dating for organic material become unreliable.

As to Christianity being in conflict with Evolution, see my statements to HMS. If you wish to start another thread, I'll join you there. And you misquoted me. I never said that Evolution must be wrong because it contradicts Christian beliefs. I simply said that it contradicts Christian beliefs. Nothing more.

"I do not believe there exists a single reliable source of proof for the hoax assertion."

Will half a dozen or so do? Let's see if I can get this right this time. First, a little history. A man named Karl Haberlein found the first "Archaeopteryx" fossil with feathers in a fossil quarry in Germany in 1861, which he then sold for 600 pounds to the Brittish Museum of Natural History. His son Ernst found the second in 1877 and sold it for 36,000 gold marks. Four other fossils resembling Archaeopteryx were found in the same quarry, and were assumed to be Archaeopteryi (SP?), but there were no feathers displayed on any of the four. With the exception of the feathers "found" on the first two, and a furcula on the 1861 specimine (which shall be discussed later), the Archaeopteryx fossils are identical to those of a chicken-sized dino called a Compsognathus. None of the six specimines has a sternum, which all birds and bats require to attach their large (relatively) flight muscles. All following information is for the 1861 specimine. As for the fossil itself, the main slab and counterslab do not mate properly. The feather inpressions are almost exclusively on the main slab, whereas there are several "bumps" on the counterslab that have no corresponding indentation on the main slab. The raised areas, nicknamed "chewing gum blobs" (by whom, I don't know), are made up of a fine grained material that is only found elseware on the fossil under the feather indentations. The rest is a course limestone. Only this specimine has a furcula (wishbone). This furcula is larger relative to the body of the "Archaeopteryx" than any other bird. It's also upside-down. The opposite indentation in the counterslab is not smooth, as one would expect of a fossil, but rough, as though it had been chiseled out. Fossilized feathers are extremely rare, and that several complete, flat feathers would just happen to be at the slab-counterslab interface is too much of a coincidence for my taste. There's also no explination of how you can encase a bird in %80 pure Solnhofen limestone. Fossils of two modern birds have been found in rocks dated BY EVOLUTIONISTS (sorry, I'd put it in italics if I knew how) to be much older than "Archaeopteryx". Finally, in 1986, an X-ray resonance spectrograph (don't ask me what that is), showed that the material that contained the feather impressions and that composed the "chewing gum blobs" was completely different from the rest of the fossil. The chemistry of this "amorphous paste" was also different from anything found in the quarry in Germany where the six fossils were supposedly found. As there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the two Archaeopteryx fossils with feathers are frauds, and as the other four show no difference from the afore-mentioned Compsognathus, it seems logical to conclude that Archaeopteryx is a hoax, the motive being profit.

Did I do better this time?

And that moth thing. The argument over genetic mutation holds becaue they are the same species. It's like different hair colour. If they were too species that happned to have different coloured wings, then I'd agree. But both types are capable of giving birth to both sorts of colours. The ones that are better suited to the environment survive (The white type has made come-back in recent years, as smog and pollution has decreased since the hay-day of the industrial revolution).

And for me, scientiffically their is a world of difference between a women getting pregnent without having intercourse (there are species in nature whcih can change sex. Plants can produce asexually. I'm sure there's a type of mutation that would allow for such a thing as Mary), and creating the universe.

One point. Baring a global disaster or somesort, it's been pretty much argreed that we've stopped evolving. So, are we at the point that God wants us to be? (BTW, saying that it's strage that God would create a universe where his 'people' for want of a better word don't come into being for eons is ludicrous. Do you really think that God would coform to time as we do? That all he could do for those billions of years is sit their and play solitare on his PC?)

------------------
Headmaster suspended for using big-faced boy as satellite-dish
-The Day Today

I thought I was the one who mentioned the Catholics. *shrug* Mary's a virgin no matter what version of the Bible you're reading, so what does it matter if the Catholics emphasize it or not? Besides, what makes you decide whether or not I should agree with it? I believe in God and I go to church. At times I even think my pastor's sermons are inspirational, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with anything he says about Evolution or homosexuality.

"And if the Catholics believe that Eden is a metaphor, what's to stop them from saying that the whole Bible isn't?"

Well, Jesus used lots of metaphors, so what's stopping you from taking all of his metaphors literally?

"Who says they're extinct?"

For the sake of simplicity, let's say you're right about the pleasaur. So where's the rest of 'em dead ones?

"The remains that were found were later confirmed to be those of humans with extreme arthritis and/or rickets"

I've heard of the story that the first ancient human they found had arthritis, so scientists thought that all ancient humans looked like that. But that was one case.

As for your Neanderthal confusion:

The solid model is homo sapien while the outlining model is Neanderthal. Doesn't look like any arthritis I know of.

(As credit should be given, some parts of the following argument comes from an article in Discover)

About Christians not wanting to be related to animals: The classification of humans in the Animal kingdom was in place a century before Darwin existed. It was the pious Creationist Carl von Linne who named the Mammalia and classed Homo sapiens amoung them in 1758. On top of that, the Old Testament itself states that human beings are beasts, and no nobler than any of the others (Eccles. 3:18-21).

The point of your linking Evolution to sin and Jesus is not irrelevant, but futile. As David Hume pointed out 250 years ago, you can't infer an infinite cause from a finite effect. Evolution is a finite effect. It has nothing to say about your moral values. Science, and in this case, Evolution, looks exclusively at the finite facts of nature, and unfortunately, logical reasoning can't carry you from facts to values, or from the finite to the infinite. The fact that science has nothing to say about the infinite doesn't prove that there isn't any infinite cause--or that right and wrong ar arbitrary conventions, or that there is no plan or purpose behind the world.

------------------
"I would be delighted to offer any advice I can on understanding women. When I have some, I'll let you know."
--Picard to Data, "In Theory"

Ah, my worthy adversary from an argument of long ago...

"Mainly the old testement is taken to be stories, parables, metaphours that may or may not have happened. The New testement is taken to be (pardon the BAD pun) gospel."

The Catholic church is about as liberal as you can get and still be considered Christian. They assume things that were never mentioned by Jesus in any reliable record. If the OT is the stuff of legends, then why would Jesus refer to it so often?

"And that moth thing. The argument over genetic mutation holds becaue they are the same species."

Not that I can see. If people with red hair could better survive in cold climate (hypothetical situation), then, if the whole world's temperature suddenly dropped, you'd have mostly redheads left. I doubt that you'll say that red hair is a mutation that suddenly appeared at some point. Just like the immunity to the antibiotics. Some bacteria have always had the immunity, while other's haven't. It's not a mutation.

"And for me, scientiffically their is a world of difference between a women getting pregnent without having intercourse (there are species in nature whcih can change sex. Plants can produce asexually. I'm sure there's a type of mutation that would allow for such a thing as Mary), and creating the universe."

Are you suggesting that Mary was a hermaphrodite? Tell that to your Catholic friends and see how they react. In Jewish society of the time, if such a child was born, it would likely have been excized from society, and certainly nobody would marry her/him/it. Jews were strict about thing like that. My point was that, from a scientific point of view, there isn't much difference between miraculously creating the universe and miraculously conceiving a child. They both defy the laws of physics.

"One point. Baring a global disaster or somesort, it's been pretty much argreed that we've stopped evolving. So, are we at the point that God wants us to be?"

I'm assuming this isn't directed toward me.

"BTW, saying that it's strage that God would create a universe where his 'people' for want of a better word don't come into being for eons is ludicrous. Do you really think that God would coform to time as we do? That all he could do for those billions of years is sit their and play solitare on his PC?"

But what would be the point? As I said, why let the universe exist for trillions of years before something interesting finally shows up, having to tweak it almost constantly? By the time things were finally where God wanted them, God would have defied the natural laws of the universe quite a bit more than if He'd just spoken everything into existance. I know He could do it either way, but the question is, would He? I get the feeling that God prefers defying the laws of physics as little as possible to accomplish what He wants.

Oh, and God uses a Mac.

Ziyal:

I've already admitted that I misread what was said, but assuming that I hadn't and that the statement about whomever it was agreeing with the Catholics about creation being a myth also meant that said whomever also agreed about the virgin birth (irrelevant note: the immacualte conception is actually a Catholic opinion regarding Mary, in that from the moment of her conception, she was without sin; anyone care to tell me where they got this idea?) of Christ. In that case, it would make no sense to believe one while denying the other.

"Well, Jesus used lots of metaphors, so what's stopping you from taking all of his metaphors literally?"

The fact that he explained what most of them meant to the deciples.

"For the sake of simplicity, let's say you're right about the pleasaur. So where's the rest of 'em dead ones? "

I assume that you mean "How did they die?". I believe the original question was "why create a species that would eventually go extinct", or something to that effect. Well, as I said, I believe most died in the Flood, and the remaining ones that were taken on the ark had trouble feeding themselves. And again, if anyone wants to start another thread on the Flood, I'd be glad to present evidence there in it's favor.

OK, well I just dug out the book that I got my info on Neanderthals from. I guess it's wrong.

I'd agree with you here. We constitute animals. The only real difference is that we have a soul (another thread on souls, anyone?).

Again, I say that if you want to talk about that pointthat I made, start another thread, and I'd be glad to join you. It can't be discussed within the bounds of this one. Anyway, I'd have to proove that the story of Eden is true, and not just allegory, before I can adequitly defend the statement I made earlier.

I don't expect logic to carry me from facts to values or religious beliefs. That's why I keep saying that people should start other threads if they want to discuss things that can't be a matter of scientific fact. I can, however, scientifically proove that there is a God, in the way that I mentioned before.

Addressing everyone:

Well, I think that the best way I can proove my point of random chance being untrue is to proove that the Earth is young. I will now list various evidences at the end of each of my posts. I don't want my posts to get too long, though, so I'll only list a few at a time.

1: The radioactive decay of uranium and thorium alone would produce all the helium of the atmosphere in only 40,000 years. There is no known way in which large amounts of helium can escape the atmosphere. Thus, the atmosphere appears to be relatively young.

2: Volcanoes eject almost a cubic mile of material into the atmosphere every year. If this rate were constant, 10 times the amount of the sediment on Earth would be expelled in 4.6 billion years. Only about 25% of sediments are of volcanic origin, and erruption rates were much higher in the past. No process has been proposed that can remove or transform so much volcanic material. Thus Earth's sediments appear to be less than 100 million years old.

3: The continents are eroding at a rate that would level them in less than 25 million years. Thus, assuming that the continents were significantly larger in the past, they can not be any older than 40 or 50 million years.

"And how can you disproove the historical accuracy of the Bible?"

No, sorry. You're making the claim, you have to prove it. That's how it works.

However, if it will make you feel better, there are lots of historical things in the Bible. There are also lots of historical things in the Koran.

At any rate, when I started this debate, I was hoping it would go down the education system path, rather than the origin of life path.

In essence, my point is this: So-called creation science is not science at all, as it does not derive facts from observational evidence, but looks for evidence to confirm what it already holds as fact. This is not in question. Read the belief statement of the Institute for Creation Research.

Since it is not science, nor grounded in scientific principles, it cannot reasonably be taught within the confines of a science course. Not without endorsing the religion it is a product of, in this Christianity. Other religions have different creation stories. Heck, even different parts of Christianity itself have different spins on it, as we've seen here. And, as Omega has shown, you cannot defend or define a spontaneous creation without bringing the religious framework along with it. I do not think we want to set the precedent of allowing any religious dogma to overthrow our education system. Because there are people who believe that the Earth is the physical center of the universe, or that medicine is essentially a sin. Or several far more evil beliefs, ala Christian Identity. Fringe groups? Yes. But all it takes is a good PR campaign and some well-paid lobbyists and these beliefs could be thrust upon us all, assuming we open that door.

I'm too tired to go into an in-depth analysis tonight, so I'll leave this with a short observation.

I never claimed that the entire Bible was historically accurate. HMS claimed that he can proove that it is not. I am challenging him and everyone else to present any evidence that the Bible is, in fact, NOT historically accurate. I may not be able to proove that it is, but it can not be prooven that it is not.

Regarding your statement that Creation shouldn't be taught in schools: EVOLUTION SHOULDN'T BE EITHER! (caps for emphasis; I'm not loosing my temper or anything) I am in the process of showing the universe to be no more than a million years old, which completely defeats the evolutionary theory. As I stated earlier, if the universe and life can be shown not to have formed by random chance, then there must be an intelligent design, and thus a designer. But you're right. You can't fairly teach that God created the universe through unknown means, and leave it at that. You should only teach what has been prooven as fact, and theories emphasizing the fact that they have not been prooven. Thus, if something must be taught, and nobody has a theory that actually fits the facts, then the only logical thing to do would be to teach the FACTS and ONLY the facts. (Well, public schools, at least. Private schools (and homeschoolers like me) can teach whatever they darn well please, and if the government tries to tell them otherwise, I will personally raise the charges before the courts.) Let the student draw their own conclusions. Might make for a good debate in the classroom...

And as for not being able to defend spontanious creation without bringing a religious framework, sure I can, but only as long a I don't try to proove any details or religious beliefs. I made a mistake by even mentioning religion. If I only try to proove that God created the universe, then I can do that, quite simply, by prooving Evolution wrong. In that case, unless somebody has an idea that actually fits the facts, the only possibility is that God created the universe within the bounds set by the observational evidence.

Again, I challenge anyone to present ANY evidence in favor of Evolution, or against spontaneous creation.

And, from here on out, how about NO discussion of any religious beliefs, aside from the existance or non-existance of God. Only the facts.

And in my continuing series on the age of the universe, I have realized the hidden assumptions in some that I already mentioned. The revised and expanded list is as follows:

1: The radioactive decay of uranium and thorium alone would produce all the helium of the atmosphere in only
40,000 years. There is no known way in which large amounts of helium can escape the atmosphere. Thus, unless the rates of decay of radioactive elements was much lower in the past, the atmosphere appears to be relatively young.

2: Volcanoes eject almost a cubic mile of material into the atmosphere every year. If this rate were constant, 10 times the amount of the sediment on Earth would be expelled in 4.6 billion years. Only about 25% of sediments are of volcanic origin, and evidence suggests that erruption rates were much higher in the past. No process has been proposed that can remove or transform so much volcanic material. Thus, unless such a process can be found, or volcanic activity was actually far lower in the past, Earth's sediments appear to be less than 100 million years old.

3: The continents are eroding at a rate that would level them in less than 25 million years. Thus, assuming that the continents were significantly larger in the past, the continents steadily grow to counter the erosion, or the erosion has begun only recently, the continents can not be any older than 40 or 50 million years.

4: As tidal friction slows the Earth's spin, physics requires that the Moon recedes from the Earth. This recession has been observed since 1754. Even if the Moon began orbiting very near the Earth's surface, it would have receded far beyond it's present distance by now. Thus, either the rate of recession is not constant, and has only recently had any effect, or the Earth-Moon system is far younger than the 4.6 billion years claimed by evolution.

5: If the Moon was billions of years old, by now the dust that's accumulated on the surface should be AT MINIMUM several meters thick, with some estimates as high as a mile. Instead, it's only a couple of inches. Either the rate of impact was exceedingly low in the past, huge amounts of dust were removed or transformed by an unknown process, or the moon is far less than 4.6 billion years old.

My observation:

First, we get: " if the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has changed at any point in history (as it almost certainly has; few things remain constant for long),"

And then we get:...
Well, cutting and pasting your last 5 points would take too long, but if you'll read them, they all depend on assuming that these rates: dust accumulation, continental erosion, etc, stay CONSTANT. That's a bit of having your cake and eating it too, don't you think?

Oh, and the reason for the Moon not being so dusty is the same as the reason for glaciers. If enough snow falls, it compacts and becomes ice. Similarly, if enough dust falls, it compacts and becomes akin to rock. Thusly, the low dust level.

And the reason the continents haven't eroded away is that mountains are being built at the same rate, among other reasons.

I'm going to bed now.
I've gotta start checking during the ^%#$% daytime...

------------------
"When we turn our back on our principles, we stop being human." -- Janeway, "Equinox"

Ah, but what you fail to notice is that my points about age require that a RATE remain reasonably the same, while my comment about Radiocarbon dating being inacurate requires that the RATIO changes.

As for the moon dust compressing into rock, why would there be only one or two inches of dust now? You're suggesting that the dust had piled up over bilenia, until it reached a certain, critical depth at which the dust could exert enough pressure on the dust below it to turn it into solid rock, say 20'. After that, the depth of the dust will remain constant, because as soon as another foot accumulates, a foot of dust at the bottom will be turned into rock. The only way that that would explain the fact that there are still only two inches of dust on the moon is if that critical depth is two inches, and the said 20' of dust isn't going to exert that much pressure, especially on the moon.

Getting late. Better get back to reading Jane Eyre.

P.S. Jane Eyre is a cool book and tell me if you liked the end.

------------------
HMS White Star (your local friendly agent of Chaos:-) )