Creationist Lunar Volcanism? - MyMoon

NASA and MyMoon have teamed up to blog about everything lunar. Art, literature, music, movies, science, and everything in between!

All quiet on the twitter front.


As you may recall from my first blog post, I am from Kansas, born and raised. Thankfully, nobody here at LPI holds that against me - I don't think. I am proud to be from the great fly-over state of Kansas (remember, 1 Kansas farmer feeds 151 people + you). However, I am not so proud of some of the movements that the state has become synonomous with. (cough, cough...Creationism ...cough, cough)

Don't get me wrong. I love my people and I like to think I have a pretty good understanding of them. Kansans just want to live their lives and take care of their families the best that they can. As a consequence, many things outside of family tend to stay off most folks' radar, including science. Unfortunately, this can, and does, lead to ignorance, which is why I become alarmed whenever I come across stories of creationist lunacy. The other day I stumbled upon an online article while looking up info on lunar volcanism. To my amazement, the third link on my Google search results page sent me to an article on the Creation Ministries International website. In the article, posted on my birthday coincedentally, the author argues that recent results from the Japanese lunar mission Kaguya "prove" the Moon is younger than previously thought:

"Evolutionary timeframes date the moon at about 4.5 billion years, with the lunar volcanism that produced the large, prominent and nearly circular, dark 'seas' (or maria, as they are called) starting soon after that. The volcanism is mooted to have ended about three billion years ago.

"But researchers studying recent images of the far side of the moon, taken from the Japanese SELENE (Kaguya) lunar satellite, report dark 'seas' of volcanic rock they say are 'only' 2.5 billion years old, 'much younger' than formerly presumed. That’s because there are fewer craters (blasted by meteors) on the smooth dark surfaces than expected—assuming the rate of cratering has been constant through time. Fewer craters means that the volcanic lava flows can’t be so old."

Oh, where to begin. The first paragraph is fine. No argument there. Except for the word "mooted." Why didn't they just use "argued?" If it was an attempt to sound smart, FAIL. Most of the second paragraph is OK, too, until "assuming the rate of cratering has been constant." I don't know of any lunar or planetary scientist who argues the cratering rate has been constant. If the cratering rate in the solar system was constant, the Earth, Moon, and every other planet would still be pummeled on a daily basis! It is true that fewer craters on a planetary (or the lunar) surface imply it is a relatively younger surface than a heavily cratered surface. However, that is true for that one particular area of the greater surface that is being studied. In this case, it does not mean the rest of the surface of the Moon, or the Moon in general, is as young as the farside maria in question! The article goes on to conclude that this is proof that the accepted value for the age of the Moon is decreasing, inching ever-so closer to the "true" age of the solar system and the Universe that creationists have "calculated"; 6,000 years old. Oh, I almost forgot. The article cites five sources; three of which are creationist journals. Yeah...


Be the first to comment! We'd love to hear from you, all of you, but first you need a free account. So if you want to be heard use the the blue form stuck to the bottom of your browser and make it happen!

or use your MyMoon login.