Dust on the Moon Revisited

photo credit: nasa.gov


Short, quick, logical reads
with meaningful content.

The topic I want to discuss in this blog is a scientific theory and I want to be clear that this is a “theory!” Because something is a theory does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that the theory has been proven or that it is a scientific fact. However, it also does not mean it has been disproven using the scientific method. For information on the scientific method, please see my earlier blog titled “What is science anyway.”

photo credit: nasa.gov

The theory is that if the universe is billions of years old, as the Darwin theory of evolution would indicate, there should be an incredible amount of dust on the moon if certain calculations done by a scientist in 1960 were correct. Enough in fact that when the astronauts landed on the moon they should have been enveloped in dust. However, there were others’ calculations performed in 1993 which disagreed with the 1960 findings. There were some disagreements about what was included as dust and what elements were included in the dust among other variables.

Now, the blogs that I write are certainly not fit for a scientific journal nor are they based on pure science. I am guided by my faith in Christ, but I like to study topics of interest and try to approach these topics in an objective manner even though that approach may not meet the strict standards of the scientific method.

Thejerusalemgiftshop.com - Discover Christian Gifts from the Holy Land

When I think about dust it just doesn’t make any sense to me that it is possible to accurately measure the amount of dust “scientifically.” I think about all of the variables that affect the amount of dust that might fall in any given area that is being measured. There is no wind on the moon, but there is  solar activity that according to some authorities can affect the amount of dust that falls on the moon. Also, there is disagreement as to what size particles constitute dust.

footprint on the moon – photo credit: nasa.gov

As you can see there is disagreement regarding details concerning calculations about the rate of dust accumulation on the moon. Therefore, in cases such as this it’s my opinion that logic and reason are more reliable than dubious calculations. Therefore the way to settle this disagreement is to use logic and reason to arrive at an estimate that makes sense.

Since calculating the rate of dust accumulation on the moon is difficult, it seems better to use a quantifiable small measurement that can be known and work outward expanding the small known amount to the larger unknown  quantity. For example, generally particles of dust have been estimated at approximately .3 microns (also known as a micrometer, one millionth of a meter) to 10 microns in size.

Anyone who doesn’t do daily house cleaning knows that in one week’s time a layer of dust accumulates. It takes 25,400 microns to equal one inch. Therefore, using a rational approach without all the professional jargon and caveats I will choose the .3 microns to represent the thickness of a layer of dust that can accumulate in one week. Therefore, dividing one inch thickness of dust (25,400 microns equals one inch) by .3 microns (thickness of particles of dust accumulated in one week estimated at .3 microns) yields 84,667 weeks or 1,628 years to accumulate one inch of dust. If say there are 3 inches of dust on the moon using the earth’s estimated rate would yield and age of 4,885 years. Obviously this is not a scientific estimate, but it is a rational way to arrive at an estimate that is just as valid as some scientific guesstimate without all the fancy jargon.

photo credit: pixaby

Now, it is critical that I state emphatically this is not a scientific analysis. It is merely an amateur’s effort to use a simple easy to understand rationale for arriving at a ballpark estimate for dust accumulation and using this estimate to make a ballpark estimate of the age of the universe. Are there flaws … of course! Any attempt to try and estimate dust accumulation is suspect at best. I used the smallest amount for the dust accumulation in one week as this would produce the largest estimate and avoid criticism that I was trying to make the estimate of years low. Instead of using one of the lowest found estimates of .3 microns, had I used .03 microns this would have resulted in an estimate of 48,000+ years. Had I used .003 microns this would have resulted in an estimate of 488,000+ years. And had I used .00003 microns, the estimate would have been just shy of 49,000,000 years. As anyone can see, billions of years does not seem to be a reasonable estimate.

I am interested in your opinion on this topic. Please leave your comments below. Whether you agree or not I’d like to know what your reasoning is for your opinion. Thanks for stopping by.

Thejerusalemgiftshop.com - Discover Christian Gifts from the Holy Land


Please consider buying something through the merchant links presented here on this site as this will help ensure I can continue shedding light on important topics. Thank you.
The blogs that I do are a result of compiling information gathered from sources considered reliable and of course the Bible which is totally reliable.


What is Science anyway?

photo credit: nasa.gov


Short, quick, logical reads
with meaningful content.

One of the first things that has to be discussed is the word “science.” I don’t think there  is any room  for anyone  misunderstanding as to what the word “creation” means. However, the word science seems to cause much more difficulty for the average person when it comes to understanding.

photo credit: jeshoot.com

Therefore, it makes sense to first go to the dictionary for the definition of this much abused word Science.
The Science Council provides the quality assurance system for those working in science throughout the European Union. They set the standards for professional registration for practicing scientists and science technicians across all scientific disciplines. Through their Licensed Bodies they admit to their registered scientists and science technicians who meet their competence and conduct requirements and commit to Continuing Professional Development. Those scientists who reach the required standards are recognized by the following designations CSci, RSci, CSciTeach, and RSciTech. (The Science Council is the competent authority of the European Union.)
The Science Council defines Science as:

”Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence:

Scientific methodology includes the following:

Objective observation.
Measurement and data

(possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool)

and / or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses
reasoning to establish general rules or conclusions drawn from facts or examples
Critical Analysis
Verification and Testing:

critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment”

The definition of the noun science from the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary: “knowledge about the structure and behaviour of the natural and physical world, based on facts that, for example, you can prove by experiments.”

photo credit: nasa.gov

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines Science as:

“knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world.”

”The word ‘science’ has its root in the Latin word ‘scientia.’ This is “knowledge based on

In keeping with this definition, science must have measurable results using testing and analysis.”

Science is based on facts, not our opinions and preferences. The whole concept of science has been developed to challenge unproven ideas through research.

According to the website livescience.com, “the steps of the scientific method go something like this:

Make an observation or observations
Ask questions about the observations and gather information.
Form a hypothesis
a tentative description of what’s been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
Analyze the data and draw conclusions;
accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory.

“Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method, Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, told Live Science. The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility – no science.

photo credit: nasa.gov

Based on the above definitions of science, it’s obvious for something to be claimed as “scientific” it must be proven using established principles, procedures, and is capable of being proven through use of the “Scientific Method.” Observing the steps in the scientific method it becomes very clear that there are established procedures that must be followed for a theory to move from theory to scientific fact. Simply because a theory can be made to “seem” reasonable or be the best “explanation” available does not qualify that theory to be called “scientific fact! Making some assumptions and then performing mathematical calculations based on those assumptions does not “prove” anything. It merely goes to show that the researchers or scientists are able to competently perform math calculations. The important point is that the scientific assumptions, calculations, and results must be observed and can be shown to actually result in what is hypothesized. Accurate mathematics do not equate to scientific proof.


Please consider buying something through the merchant links presented here on this site as this will help ensure I can continue shedding light on important topics. Thank you.
The blogs that I do are a result of compiling information gathered from sources considered reliable and of course the Bible which is totally reliable.