RE: modern use of moon dust by YECs

Vandergraaf, Chuck (
Wed, 4 Nov 1998 00:07:26 -0500

> 1 - Moon dust. Ultraviolet light changes moon rocks into dust. It had long
> been predicted that a thick layer of dust (20-60 miles
> [32-96.5 km], caused by ultraviolet radiation on the moon's
> 4-billion-year-old surface, must cover the moon's surface. But scientists
> were astonished to learn that there is not over 2-3 inches [5.08-7.62 cm]
> of dust-just the amount expected if the moon was only a few
> thousand years.-pp. 15, 17.
I don't get this. If UV light could indeed change rocks to dust (if may,
for all I know), this should be a self-limiting process because the UV light
would be eventually be totally absorbed by a layer of dust and the process
should then cease. There is, as far as I am aware, no mechanism (wind,
water) that would spread the dust around. In other words, a thin layer of
dust would not prove a young moon.

> 2 - Lunar soil. The dirt on the moon's surface does not show the amount of
> soil mixing it should have, if the moon were very
> old.-p. 17.
See above. Without any wind, how could lunar dust be mixed?

> 3 - Lunar isotopes. Short-term radioactive isotopes (uranium
> 236 and thorium 230) have been found in the collected
> moon rocks.
Th-230 is a member of the U-238 decay series and should be in equilibrium
with the U-238 parent. The presence of short-lived Th-230 is no evidence of
a young moon. I don't have my references handy and cannot comment on U-236.

> These isotopes do not last long and rather quickly turn into
> lead. If the moon were even 50,000 years old, these short-life
> radioisotopes would long since have decayed into lead. The moon cannot be
> older than several thousand years.-p. 17.
See my comment above.

> Hey, I guess I was wrong about the moon, it is young! :-)
This is not to say that the moon could not be young; it's the arguments that
are used to show that the moon is young are faulty.

Chuck Vandergraaf
Pinawa, MB