After this length of time using the same arguement... yes, I do. Had it been an honest mistake, those who made the mistake and promulgated it would have made retractions.
Givign them the most charity I can leads me to believe that even at their most honest, they weren't that honest. The initial claims of thousands of feet of dust were based on faulty math... and apparetnlyfautly math based on very *simple* math. The sort of error that can easily be made.... but will be easily caught when you check your work. Sinc ethat error was not corrected, it is reasonable to conclude:
1: The math was done once, and was not checked because it supported an existing bias. This is scientifically dishonest.
or...
2: The math was checked and found to be flawed, but the original flawed answer was used because it was preferable. This is also flawed.
This is just one instance. However, the world of YEC is *full* of such things. The YE concept is based on a foundation of falsehoods. It strains credulity to believe that people so clearly intelligent (as shown by how successful many are are making money from this) would be so consistently stupid. Dishonesty is a far simpler and more likely answer.
– UPDATE 2002 - Added for the Web Version – A recent review of the latest and best evidence by creation scientists Andrew A. Snelling and David E. Rush indicates that there is much less dust in the earth-moon vicinity that earlier estimated. As a result most creationists now believe that the moon-dust argument should not be used. For more information on the latest data check the link: . This author agrees with the position of Answers in Genesis and does not currently use the moon-dust argument. However we need to remember that the evolutionist conception of the solar system's origin assumes much more dust in the past than is currently present. Finally, there are many factors known to remove cosmic dust as time passes (see chapter 3).