That's not an answer. If I Google "Ghost Hunters" I get a multitude of hits from people who claim to hunt ghosts. Does this mean it's legitimate? Or even answers anything?
Does it answer anything? Well, that depends on your ability to analyze and understand the basics of rational academic discourse.
When you do a search for the recession rate of the moon being incompatible with an old universe, you get two main types of results:
1) Scientific answers which state: "This is why the recession rate of the moon is perfectly compatible with an old universe. Here are the applicable arguments from astronomy and physics, along with the math to demonstrate precisely how the recession rate of the moon is determined, and that it is not constant."
2) Young earth creationists whose arguments go something like this: "D00d!11!!11eleventyone!! The moon recedes from the earth at a rate of 3 centimeters per year which, if I do my math right, means that in an old universe the moon should have receded by eleventy billion miles! Obviously, those fools with their 'science' and 'book-learning' don't know anything!"
Even if you find one of those rare young-earth creationists sites which tries to sound reasonable and academic rather than reactionary, you still ultimately have two choices. Do you put more trust in:
a) A well-reasoned and researched article which clearly and concisely lays out the precise conditions which govern the movement of near-earth astronomical bodies, as well as how those conditions have historically affected the movement of the moon.
or
b) "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it."
The same applies if you do a search for ghost hunters, or any other topic which you suspect may be bunk. Is the article you are reading clear, concise, well-researched, and written by people with genuine experience in the field? Does any scientific component of the argument properly adhere to the scientific method? Have the results of any experiment been verified? Are there alternative explanations for the phenomena in question? Does the argument put forth ask "the hard questions", or is it full of "fluff"?
This is the very essence of skepticism - the ability to question, the urge to discover, and the testicular fortitude to accept when your dearly-held beliefs are found to be incorrect.
