Crisis in Crater Count Dating | The Institute for Creation Research
Crisis in Crater Count Dating

Dating methods are like human pyramids; they depend ultimately on the support of the bottom layer. Picture an inverted pyramid. If the bottom guy buckles under pressure, the circus act quickly turns into a dogpile. One widely used technique for estimating ages of planetary surfaces is in similar jeopardy. Its underlying assumption, unquestioned for decades, has recently been found to be seriously flawed.

Crater-count dating seems perfectly logical: the more craters, the older the landscape. It assumes, however, that impactors arrive at a roughly steady rate and produce one crater per hit. After compensating for various complicating factors, like atmospheric density, gravity, and geological activity, scientists had been confident of their time charts -- until recently. New thinking about "secondary craters" has thrown this whole foundation of comparative planetary dating into disarray.

Secondary craters are those formed from the debris of an initial impact. If a sufficiently massive body hits a planet or moon, the debris cloud tossed upward will contain many pieces big enough to fall back and form more craters. Planetologists were not unaware of secondary cratering, but until recently, underestimated its significance. Now they are finding that the vast majority of craters could be secondaries. One writer in Nature estimated that a single large impact on Mars could generate ten million secondaries, and that 95% of the small craters on Europa could be from fallback debris.

Without a way to reliably identify secondary craters, only subjective inferences can be made about the history of a surface. One might suppose secondaries could be identified by proximity to a large crater, or by similar amounts of erosion or space weathering. It's not so simple. Some debris could go into orbit only to fall back centuries later, while other pieces could escape into space to eventually impact other bodies. Fallback debris could also cast dust over the primary craters, obscuring the relationship, or could even toss up more debris to generate additional impacts.

Believing they knew how old the earth-moon system was, and something about its geological history, scientists had plotted crater density on the moon against surface age. They applied this to Mars and other planets and moons, such that any surface could be dated by reference to the lunar standard. A pyramid was thus built on a shaky assumption. Now, awareness of the potential for single impacts to generate vast numbers of secondary craters has yanked the guy on the bottom, bringing the scheme crashing down. Science (May 26, 2006) reported that at a conference last March, "125 planetary scientists deadlocked" over how to apply the method, with many doubting that crater counts have anything to do with telling time. Geological dates inferred from the method could be "off by orders of magnitude."

A brief discussion like this cannot begin to place crater formation within a Biblical timescale. A full creationist model of cratering in the solar system will require much work. There is an important lesson here, though, for all science lovers: question assumptions.

*David F. Coppedge works in the Cassini program at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

Cite this article: Coppedge, D. 2007. Crisis in Crater Count Dating. Acts & Facts. 36 (1).

The Latest
NEWS
Human Genome 20th Anniversary—Junk DNA Hits the Trash
The first rough drafts of the human genome were reported in 2001 (one in the private sector and one in the public sector).1-2 Since then, after...

NEWS
Bacterial Proteins Use Quantum Mechanics
Researchers have found a dimmer switch inside a protein. It tunes the protein’s configuration to take advantage of quantum mechanics during photosynthesis....

NEWS
Dr. Bill Cooper, ICR’s Adjunct Professor, Now in Glory
Earlier last month on March the 9th, Dr. William R. Cooper, ICR’s Master Faculty (known to ICR-SOBA’s faculty as “Dr. Bill” since...

NEWS
Inside April 2021 Acts & Facts
How will ICR expand biblical creation education this year? How do fossilized fish and land creatures confirm Genesis history? Does recent research support...

ACTS & FACTS
Creation Kids: Bees
You’re never too young to be a creation scientist! Kids, discover fun facts about God’s creation with ICR’s special Creation Kids learning...

ACTS & FACTS
Pleasure in Our Purpose
Eric Liddell was one of the most famous athletes of the 20th century and perhaps the greatest that Scotland ever produced. An international rugby player,...

APOLOGETICS
Beware Sinkholes and Other Failing Foundations
The sudden falling of some Christian schools can be compared to tiankengs, the geological term used for sinkholes that are at least 300 feet deep.1,2...

ACTS & FACTS
The Painted Desert: Fossils in Flooded Mud Flats
Brian Thomas, Ph.D., and Tim Clarey, Ph.D. The Painted Desert stretches across 120 miles of northern Arizona. Its sedimentary rocks show bright...

ACTS & FACTS
Does Recent Research Support Human Evolution?
In 1997, the Institute for Creation Research ran an Acts & Facts article on the lack of compelling evidence regarding our supposed evolution from...

ACTS & FACTS
Building a Perfectly Optimal Flying Machine
For thousands of years, people have dreamed of flying because they witnessed birds and knew it was possible. Inspired by a study of birds, the Wright...