Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!mustang!data.nas.nasa.gov!eagle!news From: lvron@earth.lerc.nasa.gov (Ronald E. Graham) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: sci.space or talk.origins? (was Re: Creationists and Moon Dust) Message-ID: <1990Nov9.223440.5571@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> Date: 9 Nov 90 22:34:40 GMT References: <7470005@hpfcso.HP.COM> Reply-To: lvron@earth.lerc.nasa.gov Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center Lines: 30 News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4 In article , s64421@zeus.usq.EDU.AU (house ron) writes... >rjn@hpfcso.HP.COM (Bob Niland) writes: [regarding "proof" that the moon is 6000 years old, and who adheres to it...] >>What makes you think that anything you might have to say about lunar >>evidence would sway them in the least? Before bothering to prepare counter >>arguments, make sure you first come to agreement with them on fundamentals, >>like the meaning of words, and rules of logic and evidence. What are they >>prepared to accept as disproof of their position? (probably nothing) >I suspect you are right - nothing I say will change their minds. Someone >else pointed out the vacuum welding effect. If the moon dust had been there, >they would say "AHA! not enough time for vacuum welding to take place!" [...and the fruitlessness of debate...] Guys, I don't normally care for folks who say "this topic doesn't belong here." But I'm going to say it now. This topic, at least addressed from the perspective of preparing for debate, doesn't belong here. They have a group where it does belong. It's called talk.origins. This is coming from the point of view of a "creationist" who doesn't care how old the world is, or the mechanism by which it was made: only who started the mechanism. Some folks do believe that. Be careful not to assume all folks are the same. And if you want to flame me, kindly do it e-mail. The flames don't belong here either. RG