Origin of the Moon -- Science Disproves Evolution

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Evolutionary theories for the origin of the Moon are highly speculative and completely inadequate (a). The Moon could not have spun off from Earth, because its orbital plane is too highly inclined. Nor could it have formed from the same material as Earth, because the relative abundances of its elements are too dissimilar from those of Earth (b). The Moon�s nearly circular orbit is also strong evidence that it was never torn from nor captured by Earth (c). If the Moon formed from particles orbiting Earth, other particles should be easily visible inside the Moon�s orbit; none are.

Some claim that the Moon formed from debris splashed from Earth by a Mars-size impactor. If so, many small moons should have formed (d). The impactor�s glancing blow would either be too slight to form our large Moon, or so violent that Earth would end up spinning too fast (e). Besides, part of Earth�s surface and mantle would have melted, but none of the indicators of that melting have been found (f). Also, small particles splashed from Earth would have completely melted, allowing any water inside them to escape into the vacuum of space. However, Apollo astronauts found on the Moon tiny glass beads that had erupted as molten material from inside the Moon but had dissolved water inside! The total amount of water that was once inside the moon probably equaled that in the Caribbean Sea (g).

These explanations have many other problems. Understanding them caused one expert to joke, �The best explanation [for the Moon] was observational error�the Moon does not exist (h).� Similar difficulties exist for evolutionary explanations of the other (almost 200) known moons in the solar system.

But the Moon does exist. If it was not pulled or splashed from Earth, was not built up from smaller particles near its present orbit, and was not captured from outside its present orbit, only one hypothesis remains: the Moon was created in its present orbit. [See �Evolving Planets?� on page 30, and �Moon Recession,� �Moon Dust and Debris,� and �Hot Moon� on page 40.]

a. �The whole subject of the origin of the moon must be regarded as highly speculative.� Robert C. Haymes, Introduction to Space Science (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1971), p. 209.

On 10 November 1971, Dr. Harold Urey, a Nobel prize-winning chemist and lunar scientist, stated �I do not know the origin of the moon, I�m not sure of my own or any other�s models, I�d lay odds against any of the models proposed being correct.� Robert Treash, �Magnetic Remanence in Lunar Rocks,� Pensee, Vol. 2, No. 2, May 1972, p. 22.

�In astronomical terms, therefore, the Moon must be classed as a well-known object, but astronomers still have to admit shamefacedly that they have little idea as to where it came from. This is particularly embarrassing, because the solution of the mystery was billed as one of the main goals of the US lunar exploration programme.� David W. Hughes, �The Open Question in Selenology,� Nature, Vol. 327, 28 May 1987, p. 291.

b. Haymes, p. 209.

c. Paul M. Steidl, The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), pp. 77�79.

M. Mitchell Waldrop, �The Origin of the Moon,� Science, Vol. 216, 7 May 1982, pp. 606�607.

�If the Moon had separated from the Earth, it would either have broken away completely or returned, but it could not have gone into orbit.� Stacey, p. 38.

d. �We conclude that an Earth system with multiple moons is the final result unless some particularly severe constraints on initial conditions in the disk are met.� Robin M. Canup and Larry W. Esposito, �Accretion of the Moon from an Impact-Generated Disk,� Icarus, Vol. 119, February 1996, p. 427.

e. �... no reasonable means to rid the Earth/Moon system of this excess angular momentum has yet been proposed.� Shigeru Ida et al., �Lunar Accretion from an Impact-Generated Disk,� Nature, No. 2, Vol. 389, 25 September 1997, p. 357.

f. �A collision big and hot enough to yield the moon�s magma ocean would have melted at least part of Earth�s surface as well. But geologists could not find any evidence that the mantle had ever melted. If it had, they expected to find that iron-loving elements such as nickel, tungsten, and cobalt had been drawn from Earth�s upper layers into its iron core. Instead, the concentration of iron-loving elements, called siderophiles, remains relatively high in Earth�s mantle. And other elements that should have segregated in a liquid mantle were instead commingled.� Karen Wright, �Where Did the Moon Come From?� Discover, Vol. 24, February 2003, pp. 65�66.

g. �This is a problem for the giant impact theory, says [Erik] Hauri. �It�s hard to imagine a scenario in which a giant impact melts, completely, the moon, and at the same time allows it to hold onto its water,� he says. �That�s a really, really difficult knot to untie.� � Nell Greenfieldboyce, quoting Erik Hauri, �Glass Beads from Moon Hint of Watery Past,� www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92383117, 12 July 2008. [See Endnote 60 on page 304.]

h. Jack J. Lissauer, �It�s Not Easy to Make the Moon,� Nature, Vol. 389, 25 September 1997, pp. 327�328.