Posted on 10/30/2013 4:56:18 PM PDT by lasereye
Secular scientists used to regard the planetary collision theory as a triumph in explaining several of the moon's specific arrangements. But newfound facts severely debilitate this lunar impact origins theory.
According to this new theory, an early Earth collided at a glancing angle with a planet that was one or two times the mass of Mars. Some of the debris launched into orbit around Earth and somehow collected to form the moon. This could explain the moon's peculiar orbit and some of its other properties.1 But, as Bob Jones University astronomy professor Ron Samec noted, recent studies refute even this origins scenario.2
For example, ratios of rare titanium forms in moon rocks were identical to those found on Earth. This implies that the supposed impacter did not contribute its material to the moon after all.3
An increasing number of computer simulations have revealed additional flaws in this planetary collision model. Science journalist Daniel Clery recently wrote in Science, "As a result, researchers are casting around for new explanations. At a meeting at the Royal Society in London last month—the first devoted to moon formation in 15 years—experts reviewed the evidence. They ended the meeting in an even deeper impasse than before, as several proposed solutions to the moon puzzle were found wanting."1
California Institute of Technology's David Stevenson, who helped organize the Royal Society event, said, "It's got people thinking about the direction we need to go to find a story that makes sense," according to Science.1
In a recent article published in the technical Journal of Creation, Bob Jones' Samec summarized reasons why three older naturalistic lunar origins stories had failed—reasons that would have compelled secular astronomers to warmly greet the newer impact theory.2
The first story—one invented by Charles Darwin's second son George—held that dense, sinking matter increased the early earth's rotation speed so fast that it threw off material from the Pacific Ocean basin. It later cooled to become the moon. Samec wrote, "The problem with this is that the initial spin or angular momentum is not conserved in the present earth-moon system."2
A replacement moon origins story told how Earth's gravity somehow "captured" a large object that would become the moon as it was flying nearby. Even the secular community now agrees that this is not the answer. Samec commented, "One major problem with this idea is that capture is an extremely rare event."2 Also, such a capture would have produced a highly elliptical lunar orbit, not the nearly circular one it actually has.
A third story tells of gas condensing in eddies to form Earth and its moon. But if this were true, then "the moon's orbital plane and earth's equator should coincide."2 But they don't. Earth is tilted to 23.5 degrees relative to its orbital plane, and the moon's orbit is inclined only about five degrees.
And now, titanium measurements and new computer models deal the glancing-blow theory a direct hit. But one theory still accommodates all the data. If God created the moon in a supernatural event, then that would explain its many specifications directly related to life on Earth, including its peculiar size, mass, orbit, angular momentum, composition, and density. This evidence confirms God's Word, which says, "God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night.…And God saw that it was good."4
Magnetic signatures in moon rocks and lunar recession even reveal a recently created moon that also aligns with Scripture's eyewitness account.5,6
Common-sense inferences, not only from failed hypotheses, but also from straightforward observations, continue to confirm the moon's supernatural origin.
References
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Theories about the formation of the Grand Canyon keep changing too. When I was in elementary school I was told that it was carved out very slowly over millions of years. This was presented as established fact. Now there’s no agreement. One theory holds that a big flood breaking through from a large lake carved it out.
>>One thing that demonstrates is how many “scientific” theories are nothing more than factually unsupported speculation, which are often presented as “fact”. This is especially true with theories about origins/evolution.<<
Brush up on what a Scientific Theory is. It is not a “guess write large.”
A Scientific Theory is the highest level of thought in science. It is from whence axioms are born. It is constructed from facts.
Of course.
>>I approve of the scientific method. One key element of it is that a scientific theory must be falsifiable.<<
And TToE is.
>>Theories about the formation of the Grand Canyon keep changing too. When I was in elementary school I was told that it was carved out very slowly over millions of years. This was presented as established fact. Now there’s no agreement. One theory holds that a big flood breaking through from a large lake carved it out.<<
I have not heard that, but it would not matter. It puts not a dent (and may clarify) the overall theory of how the Earth was formed (geology), continental drift, etc. etc.
But if you could kindly post the link to the scientific article/journal where this “Big flood” concept is described I would be interested in reading it.
-PJ
Lol. Has whoever wrote this never heard about gravity? It is a property of all matter... it shouldn't be such a mystery that its action should be characterized as "somehow."
And its snap your finger time again!!!!!!!
The impact theory fails, but not because of this. Thanks bhf. Only capture works, it doesn’t matter how “rare” it is.
Grand Canyon Gorge Is 9 Times Older Than Thought
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1999143/posts
Obi-Wan: That’s no moon. It’s a space station.
Apparently they do a lot of research on making conservatives and religious people live up to their ignorant stereotypes.
Knowing the answers before the question is even asked does mean that all that messy and expensive investigation stuff can be avoided.
>>Grand Canyon Gorge Is 9 Times Older Than Thought<<
Like Cher.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/50250163/#.UoEI7vnrzP0
As this article shows, scientists these days cannot come to any agreement about how the Grand Canyon formed. However the average person is under the erroneous impression that they know how it was formed.
One of the discoveries that led to the rethinking of the conventional theory is when a scientist noticed the evidence that the water flowed in the opposite direction of the Colorado when the canyon was being formed. Therefore it seemingly could not have formed it. This article discusses that.
Interesting.
Good to see science is willing to further explore additional natural causes for what we experience today.
Note no one is saying that the Grand Canyon was not formed by natural processes.
Geology is like TToE — always filling in the details and adjusting. Nothing discovered has ever changed the broad theory of the Earth’s formation (nor TToE).
If you want to see scientists REALLY argue (besides the all but discredited however still a source of funds AGW) check into the Theory of Gravity.
>>Does the Institute for Creation Research actually do any research?<<
>>>Yes they do.<<<
In the same sense that The Onion does investigative reporting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.