Here’s how Richard W. Carlson begins his article in Science Magazine: “The analysis of lunar samples returned to Earth by the Apollo and Luna missions changed our view of the processes involved in planet formation.”
Change is good, but in science, it implies that what was formerly taught as fact was not entirely true.
So is what they are saying now true?
“Ground truth” (onsite data) is far better than telescopic or orbital data about the moon, but even now, we only have about 800 pounds of lunar rocks from very near the surface at half a dozen sites (plus a few more by Russian robotic Luna spacecraft), all gathered near the moon’s equatorial regions. And even though these rocks can be examined down to the atomic level by multiple methods, the findings are often filtered through worldview assumptions.So as we look at Carlson’s “Analysis of lunar samples: Implications for planet formation and evolution,” beware the temptation to think it’s the last word.
The analysis of lunar samples returned to Earth by the Apollo and Luna missions changed our view of theBut that is not entirely true. Repeatedly for over a decade, CEH has reported (from scientific journals) major problems with crater-count dating. Some geophysicists have complained that one cannot say anything definitive about the age of a surface from craters. Here, Carlson just said that craters underpin age estimates for the rest of the inner solar system.
processes involved in planet formation. The data obtained on lunar samples brought to light the importance during planet growth of highly energetic collisions that lead to global-scale melting. This violent birth determines the initial structure and long-term evolution of planets. Once past its formative era, the lunar surface has served as a recorder of more than 4 billion years of interaction with the space environment. The chronologic record of lunar cratering determined from the returned samples underpins age estimates for planetary surfaces throughout the inner Solar System and provides evidence of the dynamic nature of the Solar System during the planet-forming era.
At much larger scales, remote observation of the Moon shows the lunar highlands to be more heavily cratered than the mare basins. This provides a relative chronology for the lunar surface [no it doesn’t], showing the mare to be younger than the highlands. Converting this relative crater chronology into an absolute chronology for the lunar surface became possible through analysis of the samples returned by Apollo. Age determinations for rocks from the lunar surface allowed calibration of the lunar impact flux through time.
But absolute chronology depends on assumptions about radiometric dating, which are dubious.
Erosion happens, and leaves scars.
Neither of these processes, however, tell how long they took. Planetary moyboys, looking through their long-age glasses, see millions and billions of years that nobody ever witnessed. They have to, in order to give Darwin time to evolve humans from bacteria."
CEH
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night:
Genesis 1:16
This flux estimate can be extrapolated throughout the inner Solar System, allowing the cratering record for other planets and moons to be turned from relative to absolute chronologies for their surfaces. Such data provide basic information on the rate of planetary resurfacing either destructively by erosion, or constructively by volcanism, with the latter providing key information on the dynamics of planetary interiors.Volcanism happens, and leaves scars.
Erosion happens, and leaves scars.
Neither of these processes, however, tell how long they took. Planetary moyboys, looking through their long-age glasses, see millions and billions of years that nobody ever witnessed. They have to, in order to give Darwin time to evolve humans from bacteria."
CEH
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night:
Genesis 1:16