Oh, I can handle it. You have provided a rich supply of errors that I have managed to tolerate. But mostly it’s when science is twisted to fit a dogma that I am disappointed.
Real Science Friday: 2011's List of Not So Old Things Pt. 2
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
She's blown her cover?! :shocked:
Used to? Davis BJ, I'm reading up on the squid ink, and I'll make the appropriate corrections. Are you likewise eager to correct yourself...
DavisBJ, that is exactly what NASA was fearful of, and why they put those feet on the lunar lander. This narrative quotes from NASA's own website and their official history of the lunar program, and their concern that led them to design the pod feet of the lander out of a fear that there might be enough dust that the lander might sink out of sight.
From Real Science Friday's NASA Feared Deep Moon Dust:
* First a BEL Caller Talks to NASA's Dr. Gold: An atheist caller, Forrest from Hawaii, had previously claimed that he had spoken to a NASA scientist Dr. Thomas Gold, who had personally told him that NASA had no concern about too much dust on the moon. Forrest wanted to use this information to discredit Bob Enyart's account of NASA designing the Lunar Module with large "feet" to prevent it from sinking into dust on the moon.
* Secondly Retired Engineer Bob Ball Reports His Research & Personal Recollection: Long-time friend of BEL and retired computer engineer Bob Ball (see Bob's TOL obituary) from Indiana confirmed through his own research and independent recollection, NASA's serious, though unwarranted, concern in the 1960s that the moon would hold a tremendous amount of dust (because they believed it would have been collecting dust for billions of years, an age, and therefore, a concern, that young-earth creationists would dispute). Ball further recounted that this concern was promoted by NASA's own Dr. Thomas Gold himself, the very man our caller Forrest says that he had spoken to, who allegedly claimed that NASA had no such concern, and especially not when they designed the Lunar Lander.
* Atheist Forrest Calls Back: Forrest states did not accept Bob Ball's report that Dr. Thomas Gold was the very astronomer who most promoted the unnecessary concern over moon dust.
* Next Caller Darrell Birkey Quotes NASA: Birkey, of Goshen, Indiana called in to quote from NASA's own website which states, "astronomer Thomas Gold asserted, however, that the apparently smooth areas on the moon were likely to be covered with a layer of fine dust several meters thick, raising the prospect that the lunar module might sink out of sight."
* Official NASA History Corroborates Creationist Account: So NASA's own historical account concludes just as Bob Enyart has surmised on the air, refuting Forrest's first specific criticism of BEL. For NASA itself states, "Spacecraft engineers at Houston's Manned Spacecraft Center, meanwhile, in spite of their real need for this information [how much dust] in designing the lunar landing module, had to go ahead without it [without that data]." That is, NASA was designing the Lunar Module prior to its Ranger and Surveyor missions discovering that the depth of dust on the moon was negligible. So NASA gave the lunar lander large "feet" because they were pressed for time (to fulfill John Kennedy's dream of reaching the moon by the end of the decade) and so they designed the landing features so as to prevent the craft from sinking in dust.
* Anti-Creationist Bias Evident in Revisionist History: Thus, as certainly evident unless heavily biased against any creationist claim, a concern of deep moon dust was still in the minds of NASA engineers when they designed the Lunar Lander's feet, and NASA's own website falsifies Forrest's claim of Dr. Gold's "version."
* Small Amount of Moon Dust a Valid Lunar Chronometer: See also Dr. Walt Brown's brief summary and then his careful analysis of published data showing how much dust should be on a four-billion year old moon (a lot). Dr. Brown's calculations, which are based on actual data, raise doubt about whether Answers in Genesis is correct in its claim that creationists should not use the moon dust argument.
-Bob Enyart
ooops, the lander did not need webbed feet. therefore the universe is 6000 years old. Is that your logic?
Actually, this is what the NASA site you mentioned states:
"The greatest uncertainty in the program at that time, pointed up by all these early studies, was the physical nature of the moon's surface. Astronomers held widely different views of what a lunar module would encounter when it touched down. Gerald Kuiper of the University of Arizona, one of the principal investigators in the Ranger project, was convinced that the surface was firm, though it might be unconsolidated and might be covered by a thin layer of dust. Cornell University astronomer Thomas Gold asserted, however, that the apparently smooth areas on the moon were likely to be covered with a layer of fine dust several meters thick, raising the prospect that the lunar module might sink out of sight with only a short-lived dust cloud to mark its disappearance.10 There was the further possibility that the surface might be so cluttered with boulders and pitted with small craters that the lander would find no level spot large enough to land - or if it tried to land, would turn over or come to rest tilted at an angle that made return to orbit difficult. "
Seems to me that the actual situation was unknown. Some thought it firm, some not firm etc. You aren't suggesting that NASA thought the moon was covered in meters of dust for sure are you, cause that would be, you know, either dishonest or another misrepresentation or another incident of creationist wishful thinking without doing enough homework. I'll chalk it up to engineers being cautious and over designing.
Actually, this is what the NASA site you mentioned states:
"The greatest uncertainty in the program at that time, pointed up by all these early studies, was the physical nature of the moon's surface. Astronomers held widely different views of what a lunar module would encounter when it touched down. Gerald Kuiper of the University of Arizona, one of the principal investigators in the Ranger project, was convinced that the surface was firm, though it might be unconsolidated and might be covered by a thin layer of dust. Cornell University astronomer Thomas Gold asserted, however, that the apparently smooth areas on the moon were likely to be covered with a layer of fine dust several meters thick, raising the prospect that the lunar module might sink out of sight with only a short-lived dust cloud to mark its disappearance.10 There was the further possibility that the surface might be so cluttered with boulders and pitted with small craters that the lander would find no level spot large enough to land - or if it tried to land, would turn over or come to rest tilted at an angle that made return to orbit difficult. "
Seems to me that the actual situation was unknown. Some thought it firm, some not firm etc. You aren't suggesting that NASA thought the moon was covered in meters of dust for sure are you, cause that would be, you know, either dishonest or another misrepresentation or another incident of creationist wishful thinking without doing enough homework. I'll chalk it up to engineers being cautious and over designing.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Nope, sorry. What's it take for someone to believe your affiliation around here? I need to make a recording of me singing hymns or something? :chuckle:
Wow, big blind spot there Bob.
Dendrochronolgy is a whole science that doesn't revolve around Bristle Cone Pines, you can do it on all sorts of trees. People do do it on all sorts of trees, all over the world, for reasons that have nothing to do with Theology. Lake Varves are another hobby one could embark on, and not even talk to those tree people, but if you did talk to the tree people you would find things matching up, so there's that.
And then here come the C-14 people and guess what? Their results go matching up with the tree ring AND the lake varve people and so..
What are ya gonna do?
Alate_One
Well-known member
Hey, it's hard to tell when you're kidding sometimes . . . :chuckle:
I was kidding. But I don't think you thought it through well enough.
I know you're on our side, I'm just making sure the atheists know.
Alate_One
Well-known member
I thought you might be kidding, but I wasn't 100% sure so I thought I'd clarify just in case.
I know you're on our side, I'm just making sure the atheists know.
- Status