Internet dating cosmology
In the few cases where reputable peer-reviewed scientific papers are cited, their content is severely misrepresented or incorrectly interpreted.
Ultimately, the article seeks to persuade by force of numbers, rather than force of argument.
However, the "increased rate" that would be required to produce the observed craters is unrealistic: if the rate of impacts to the Moon was high enough to give it its characteristic surface in under 6,000 years — the standard creationist time since creation, according to the chronology worked out by Archbishop James Ussher in 1650 — we'd expect a lot more craters on Earth; with a presumed abundance of meteors intersecting the shared orbit of Earth and the moon, it would stretch credulity indeed to suggest that something like 99.9% of them missed the larger target and hit the smaller one.
Examples of young ages listed here are also obtained by applying the same principle of uniformitarianism.
However, to draw this conclusion we have to assume that the rate of cratering has been the same in the past as it is now.
And there are now good reasons for thinking that it might have been quite intense in the past, in which case the craters do not indicate an old age at all (see below).
The vast majority of creationist assumptions of uniformitarianism, however, end up absurd because they ignore important known mechanisms of rate change. one will show that the decay of carbon-14 in the latter sample is far more advanced than in the former. that dinosaurs walked the Earth with men, requires that two different places be subject to vastly different rates of decay.
Radiometric dating does not merely give age for an assumed constant rate of decay, but also relative age. If they are found in the same place, the problem is exacerbated.
Almost every reference link in the original article either goes directly to creationist sources, or to popular science magazines which support creationism.Always the starting time of the "clock" has to be assumed as well as the way in which the speed of the clock has varied over time.Further, it has to be assumed that the clock was never disturbed.No scientific method can prove the age of the universe or the earth, and that includes the ones we have listed here.Although age indicators are called "clocks" they aren't, because all ages result from calculations that necessarily involve making assumptions about the past.
Its only assumption is that the bombardment of the moon was uniform over its surface (not necessarily over time).