• CSC Home Page
  • Order Book
  • Table of Contents
  • Preface
  • Endorsements
  • Part I: Scientific Case for Creation
    • Life Sciences
    • Astronomical and Physical Sciences
    • Earth Sciences
    • References and Notes
  • Part II: Fountains of the Great Deep
    • The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview
    • The Origin of Ocean Trenches, Earthquakes, and the Ring of Fire
    • Liquefaction: The Origin of Strata and Layered Fossils
    • The Origin of the Grand Canyon
    • The Origin of Limestone
    • Frozen Mammoths
    • The Origin of Comets
    • The Origin of Asteroids and Meteoroids
    • The Origin of Earth's Radioactivity
  • Part III: Frequently Asked Questions
  • Technical Notes
  • Index

  • Previous Page
  • Next Page

Below is the online edition of In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, by Dr. Walt Brown.
Copyright © Center for Scientific Creation. All rights reserved.

Click here to order the hardbound 8th edition (2008) and other material.

[ Technical Notes > How Much Dust and Meteoritic Debris Should the Moon Have If It Is 4,600,000,000 Years Old? > Discussion ]

Discussion

The lunar surface is composed of a powdery soil, an inch or so thick, below which are 4–10 meters of regolith.5 The Moon’s regolith consists of a range of particle sizes from fine dust up to blocks several meters wide. Meteoritic impacts overturn and mix this soil-regolith, each time coating the outer surfaces with very thin layers of condensed meteoritic material.

The expected thickness of the soil-regolith, as shown in Table 30, exceeds by about 50 times its actual thickness. (That table assumes that the Moon has been bombarded for 4.5 billion years at only today’s rate.) Most of this calculated thickness comes from Region D—meteorites larger than 106 grams but smaller than meteorites that can form craters 100 km in diameter. Why are the contributions from Regions A, B, and C so much smaller?

We made two faulty assumptions. First, we assumed that the influx of meteoritic material, for Regions A, B, and C, has always been what it is today. Obviously, as time has passed, the influx has decreased enormously because moons and planets sweep meteoritic material up or expel it beyond the Earth-Moon neighborhood. In other words, the influx of smaller dust particles in the past was much greater than satellite and moon-based seismometers have detected recently. Only Point E, which strongly influenced Region D, did not have that assumption. Point E is based on rocks that we know struck the Moon sometime in the past. Removing this assumption increases the expected thickness even more in all regions6 and would partly explain why Region D contributes so much to our total expected thickness.

Second, Table 30 assumes that the impactors fell steadily from outer space as they do today. However, Figure 153’s description on page 280 explains why most large lunar impactors probably originated from Earth and struck the Moon within a few years after the flood began. Heat flow measurements on the Moon are also consistent with a recent cratering event. [See “Hot Moon” on page 40 and the corresponding endnote on page 102.]

What if all lunar impactors were of two types: primary and secondary? The primary impactors were large, extremely high-velocity rocks launched from Earth by the fountains of the great deep. Those impacts, perhaps after a few years of orbiting the Sun, formed the Moon’s giant, multiringed basins. The resulting debris and other space debris were secondary impactors. Consequently, primary impactors account for Point E, and secondary impactors account for much smaller and slower impactors. Therefore, Region D received less impactor mass than our interpolation assumed.

  • Previous Page
  • Next Page

This site is best viewed with a screen resolution of 1024 x 768 (XGA) or higher and a browser that supports cascading style sheets.
We have tested the site in Internet Explorer (Win), Netscape (Win), Safari (Mac), and Firefox (Mac and Win).
Please let us know if you have any suggestions or find any problems with the site.

Updated on Wednesday, February 08
Copyright © 1995–2008
Center for Scientific Creation
http://www.creationscience.com

(602) 955-7663