A recent PBS program showed showed that Venus has a very “average” distribution of craters.
One scientist theorized that possibly Venus had undergone a catastrophic event in its past that might have liquified its surface.
His premise is that occasionally, every couple hundred million years or so, the surface of Venus breaks completely up, and sinks back into its molten interior.
Then the surface cools, and a new round of “average” bombardment occurs for the next couple hundred thousand millennia.
Isn’t Venus tectonically inert? (Let’s try that again.) Doesn’t Venus show an absence of tectonic activity? If that’s the case, then it would seem that there is no reason that the distribution would be “average,” since crust is not continually being created/destroyed.
The program did a fair job of showing both sides–that is the scientists in the catastrophism/something-else camp (although the other “V” word never came up).
And, no, I am not a Velikovskite–but neither of the views presented in the program had anything better than Venus’ having been cue-balled in the distant past by some renegade asteroid, either.
Maybe I missed something in the presentation, but the central mystery that was brought out was the “average” distribution of craters. That was apparently a big surprise.