Our New Home

We have a new home, come join us at WeAreSMRT (We Are Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers)

The Forum

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Craters: The YEC's Nightmare

Simple questions about the moon for the thinking creationist:

1) How are craters formed?
A) Surface impacts.

2) How many craters larger than a kilometer does the moon have?
A) Half a million.

3) How often do objects impact the moon to create craters at least a kilometer in diameter?
A) Not very often. At most, maybe once a decade.

4) Would God create the moon with impact craters on it already? If so, why?
A) ???


  1. I'll have a go at number 4. Of course God would create the moon already having craters. Why? To fool us doubting, skeptical, questioning sinner who love our sin and just want to keep on sinning and worship ourselves, our true gods.

  2. ^^ wallowing in his sin even as he types this

  3. Oh Kaitlyn,

    You know there is no such thing as a "thinking creationist"

  4. God's awesome light punched craters in it. Duh.

    Now, why does a banana slide so neatly past my waiting lips?

  5. I wonder how Ray would respond.
    From Ray's favorite site

  6. I saw that article when doing research, and it basically claims that all those impacts happened in a short time during the fall, but more probably, during the flood.

    A rain of meteors of that magnitude as to crater the entire moon in a short amount of time as they made their way toward Earth wouldn't cause a flood, it would evaporate the surface of the planet!

    It also doesn't explain the same craters being found on Mercury and moons around other planets.

    Creationism is a failure.

  7. The guy who wrote the article has a PhD in physics and astronomy, and teaches at the University of South Carolina — Lancaster.

    Ray, I can understand, but what's wrong this guy!?

    "[The Big Bang Theory is] absolute rubbish. I’m really concerned with people who put that much faith in the big bang. It is the overwhelmingly dominant model, and they’ve had a few impressive predictions, like the background radiation. But it has many problems—they keep changing the model to make it fit the data we have. As a Christian, my biggest concern is that it doesn’t agree at all with the Genesis account of how the world came to be, and my big concern is that when you make that the fingerprint of God, as it were, then when the big bang is discarded, what does that do to Christianity?"

    This guy is obviously smart, but something is very, very wrong with him.

  8. Read just the AiG introduction and my IQ fell so far I was having trouble breathing, so stopped.

  9. I haveb't yet read thos links, but I'm sure they will argue that the rate of meteorite fall need not be constant. There could have been many more meteors back in Genesis times.

    Obviously. Don't atheists ever think?

  10. God is rather like an unscrupulous antique dealer.

    Not only did he create the moon with crators on it, he planted fossils to make it look like dinasours lived millions of years ago. Then he created the geologic column to look like the strata had been laid down over billions of years, but that's OK because God works in a mysterious, albeit dishonest manner.

    God is quite the trickster.

  11. Simple. It's a test of faith, just like fossils and light from distant suns. God created us beings with the power to reason, and then surrounded us with lies, so if we were to use our God-given powers of reason, we would come to the wrong conclusions.

    In short, God is fucking with us (apologies to Bill Hicks).

  12. Kaitlyn posted this quote:

    But it has many problems—they keep changing the model to make it fit the data we have.


  13. Re Danny Faulkner, supposed scientist-

    Despite the evidence which supports the Oort cloud and Kuiper belt, some young-Earth creationists such as Faulkner still use comet existence as evidence for a young Earth. This view has not changed even after the observational evidence of the Kuiper belt was collected. As Faulkner states, "At this time it is still quite doubtful that either the Kuiper belt or Oort cloud exist, as they must in an old Solar System." (Faulkner 1997). Just paragraphs before however, he made this observation: ".while the Oort cloud may not be observable, it appears that the Kuiper belt may be.These objects are the only serious threat to the use of the existence of comets as an argument for a young Solar System." (Faulkner 1997)

    It seems, then, that this line of evidence for the young-Earth view is misleading. There is little doubt within the scientific community that the Oort cloud and Kuiper belt exist. The young-Earth creationists' attempt to date the age of the solar system, and consequently the Earth, as very young directly opposes accepted scientific evidence. With ever increasing validity through continued research, the proposition of the Oort cloud and Kuiper belt are the best explanation for the existence of comets, despite claims by young-Earth creationists that the existence of comets is evidence for a young earth.

    Young Earth Creationism is for religiously blinded idiots, whether or not they have a PhD from Indiana University.

    Note also that Faulkner received his BS from Bob Jones University, bastion of Young Earth Creationist crap.

  14. The Guy wrote they keep changing the model to make it fit the data we have.

    Kaitlyn wrote This guy is obviously smart, but something is very, very wrong with him.

    For a physicist to not understand that changing the model is REQUIRED when new data is absorbed seems, to me, to be an indication that he's not a very good physicist.

  15. Now WEM and Shaggy, you can't let something like the truth get in the way of what you believe. You both should know that by now.


Unlike Ray we don't censor our comments, so as long as it's on topic and not spam, fire away.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.