[Nathan Zachary]

And if the moon was 4.1 billion years old, the lunar lander would have vanished under the miles of dust covering the moon, especially considering evolutionists theory that the solar system was much more 'dusty' 4 billion years ago when star dust was forming planets.

Now apparently , MIT "scientists think the moon was a hot ball of rock and nickle (samples show moon rock contains a lot of nickle, much like the earth) which must of arrived here at the same time as the earth I guess.

I wonder, don't they have to cross out other "discoveries" from the journal of science before adding another one that contradicts or disproves the previous one?

[Captain Beyond]

bump for later read

[Gordon Greene]

“I wonder, don’t they have to cross out other “discoveries” from the journal of science before adding another one that contradicts or disproves the previous one?”

Nope... with scientists, discoveries pile up like moon dust and they don’t ever look back.

Kinda like the difference in “Global Warming” and “Global Climate Change”. They just change the verbiage with the addition of new evidence and keep on walking.

[Coyoteman]

And if the moon was 4.1 billion years old, the lunar lander would have vanished under the miles of dust covering the moon, especially considering evolutionists theory that the solar system was much more 'dusty' 4 billion years ago when star dust was forming planets.

You are aware that even AnswersinGenesis advises against using that discredited argument, right?