How come there is only a few inches of dust if the moon is billions of years old?

Question

Most evolutionist believe that the moon is buillions of years old.
So please consider 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 were only a few thousand years old.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/05agee2.htm#Evidence%20from%20Moon

How come there is only a few inches of dust if the moon is billions of years old?

Answer 1

Okay, I haven't seen this question on here in a while. I've linked a creationist website that shows why creationists shouldn't use this argument. Fair?

In an important paper, geologist Dr Andrew Snelling from Australia’s Creation Science Foundation [now Answers in Genesis], and former Institute for Creation Research graduate student Dave Rush, have examined in minute detail all the evidence relating to this argument.1 They have shown that:

1. The amount of dust coming annually on to the earth/moon is much smaller than the amount estimated by (noncreationists) Pettersson, on which the argument is usually based.
2.Uniformitarian assumptions cannot therefore justifiably be turned against evolutionists to argue for a young age.
3. Most NASA scientists, in fact, were convinced before the Apollo landings that there was not much dust likely to be found there.

Interestingly, Snelling and Rush’s research found that anti-creationist critics, in their haste to demolish the argument, had used figures which err greatly in the opposite direction.

For example, theistic evolutionists from Calvin College, after scathingly critiquing creationists for alleged erroneous handling of data, do precisely that and arrive at a figure for moon-dust influx only about one-twentieth of that which should have been correctly concluded from the literature they consulted.

Answer 2

Yu bear false witness and should apologize:

This argument: A single measurement of the rate of meteoritic dust influx to the Earth gave a value in the millions of tons per year. While this is negligible compared to the processes of erosion on the Earth (about a shoebox-full of dust per acre per year), there are no such processes on the moon. The moon must receive a similar amount of dust (perhaps 25% as much per unit surface area due to its lesser gravity), and there should be a very large dust layer (about a hundred feet thick) if the moon is several billion years old.

Morris says, regarding the dust influx rate:

"The best measurements have been made by Hans Pettersson, who obtained the figure of 14 million tons per year (1)." (Morris 1974, p. 152) [emphasis added]

Pettersson stood on a mountain top and collected dust there with a device intended for measuring smog levels. He published calculations which measured the amount of nickel he collected, assumed that nickel was only present in meteoritic dust, and assumed that some percentage of meteoritic dust was nickel, to get his final figures (that first assumption was wrong and caused his published figures to be a vast overestimate).

Pettersson's calculation resulted in the a figure of about 15 million tons per year. He believed that estimate to be an over-estimate, and indicated in the paper that 5 million tons per year was a much more likely figure.

Much more accurate measurements were available, from satellite penetration data (no possibility of earthly contamination), by the time Morris published Scientific Creationism. These more accurate measurements give the value of about 18,000 to 25,000 tons per year. These measurements agree with levels of meteoritic dust levels trapped in sediments on Earth. (That is, they are verified by an independent cross-check.)

Morris chooses to pick obsolete data with known problems, and call it the "best" measurement available. His calculations are based on a figure that is nearly three orders of magnitude too high. With the proper values, the expected depth of meteoritic dust on the moon is less than one foot.

For further information, see (Dalrymple 1984, pp. 108-111) or (Strahler 1987, pp. 143-144).

There is a recent creationist technical paper on this topic which admits that the depth of dust on the moon is concordant with the mainstream age and history of the solar system (Snelling and Rush 1993). Their abstract concludes with:

"It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists' multi-billion year timescale (while not proving it). Unfortunately, attempted counter-responses by creationists have so far failed because of spurious arguments or faulty calculations. Thus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and the solar system."

Even though the creationists themselves have refuted this argument, (and refutations from the mainstream community have been around for at least a decade longer than that), the "moon dust" argument continues to be propagated in their "popular" literature, and continues to appear in talk.origins on a regular basis:

Answer 3

The estimate of dust influx is out of date. Space probes have found that the level of dust influx from space is about 400 times less than the previously estimated 14 million tons per year. "Creationist" scientists are aware of the modern measurements, but they continue to use the incorrect figure because it suits their purpose.

Answer 4

Wow, and here I thought solar wind could move dust, especially on low atmosphere environments. Apparently the moon is only 2,000 years younger than beer.

Answer 5

Ultraviolet light does nothing of the sort. It's LIGHT for god's sake, it doesn't turn rocks into anything. Try getting your information from websites not run by fundamentalist loonies.

Answer 6

Since I rejected evolutionary theory decades ago and believe the earth is very young for a host of solid scientific reasons, my answer simply is:

it has 2-3 inches of dust because it is fairly young

In the days of Galileo Galilei "the father of astronomy", his arguments that the earth moves round the sun challenged the view of Catholics authorities and establishments, and took a long time to be accepted. Today, the tables are turned and creationist scientists are challenging evolutionary science...

Answer 7

read and quit being foolish. The only scientist to ever make such a prediction was a creationist deliberately using flawed data.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html

Answer 8

What a bunch of B.S.. Why don't stop reading that book of mythology and open your mind to examining the universe with an open mind. No I am not buying any of that crap and I am not going to become an Xtian.

Answer 9

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html

And UV light wouldn't penetrate more than a few inches.

Answer 10

Could it possibly environmental things such as the wind, moisture etc?