Evolutionary theories for the origin of the Moon are highly speculative and completely inadequate. The Moon could not have spun off from Earth, nor could it have formed from the same material as Earth, because its orbital plane is too highly inclined. Furthermore, the relative abundances of its elements are too dissimilar from those of Earth. The Moon’s nearly circular orbit is also strong evidence that it was never torn from nor "captured" (itself a evolution theory which defies the laws of gravity in space) by Earth.
Some claim that the Moon formed from debris splashed from Earth by a Mars-size impactor. If so, many small moons should have formed. Even if only one moon formed, the impactor’s glancing-blow would either be too slight to form our large Moon, or the impact would be so violent that Earth would end up spinning too fast. If the Moon formed from particles orbiting Earth, other particles should be easily visible inside the Moon’s orbit; none are. 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.” Similar difficulties exist for evolutionary explanations of the other 155 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.
Contrary to evolutionary opinion, planets should not form from just the mutual gravitational attraction of particles orbiting the Sun. Orbiting particles are much more likely to be scattered or expelled by their gravitational attraction than they are to be permanently pulled together. Experiments have shown that colliding particles almost always fragment rather than stick together. (Similar difficulties exist in trying to form a moon from particles orbiting a planet.)
Despite these problems, let us assume that pebble-size to moon-size particles somehow evolved. “Growing a planet” by many small collisions will produce an almost nonspinning planet, because spins imparted by impacts will be largely self-canceling.
The growth of a large, gaseous planet (such as Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, or Neptune) far from the central star is especially difficult for evolutionists to explain for several reasons.
Gases dissipate rapidly in the vacuum of outer space, especially the lightest two gases—hydrogen and helium, which comprise most of the mass of the giant planets.
Because gas molecules orbiting a star do not gravitationally pull in (or merge with) other gas molecules in the orbiting ring, a rocky planet, about ten times larger than Earth, must first form to attract all the gas gravitationally. This must happen very quickly, before the gas dissipates.(Jupiter’s hydrogen and helium is 300 times more massive than the entire Earth.)
Stars like our Sun—even those which evolutionists say are young—do not have enough orbiting hydrogen or helium to form one Jupiter.
Computer simulations show that Uranus and Neptune could not evolve anywhere near their present locations. The planets that are found outside our solar system also contradict the theories for how planets supposedly evolve. Based on demonstrable science (lacking in evolution theories), gaseous planets and the rest of the solar system did not evolve.
Planetary rings have long been associated with claims that planets evolved. Supposedly, after planets formed from a swirling dust cloud, rings remained, as seen around the giant planets: Saturn, Uranus, Jupiter, and Neptune. Therefore, some believe that because we see rings, planets must have evolved.
Actually, rings have nothing to do with a planet’s origin. Rings form when material is expelled from a moon by a volcano, a geyser, or the impact of a comet or meteorite. Debris that escapes a moon because of its weak gravity and a giant planet’s gigantic gravity then orbits that planet as a ring. If these rings were not periodically replenished, they would be dispersed in less than 10,000 years. Because a planet’s gravity pulls escaped particles away from its moons, particles orbiting a planet could never form moons—as evolutionists assert.
As tidal friction gradually slows Earth’s spin, the laws of physics require the Moon to recede from Earth. (Edmond Halley first observed this recession in 1695.) Even if the Moon began orbiting near Earth’s surface, the Moon should have moved to its present distance from Earth in billion’s of years less time than the 4.6-billion-year age evolutionists assume for the Earth and Moon. So the Earth-Moon system must be much younger than most evolutionists assume.
If the Moon were billions of years old, it should have accumulated a thick layer of dust and debris from meteoritic bombardment. Before instruments were placed on the Moon, some scientists were very concerned that astronauts would sink into a sea of dust—possibly a mile in thickness. This did not happen. Very little meteoritic debris is on the Moon. In fact, after examining rocks and dust brought back from the Moon, scientists learned that only about 1/67th of the dust and debris came from outer space. Recent measurements of the influx rate of meteoritic material on the Moon also do not support an old Moon.
A tall pile of tar will slowly flow downhill, ultimately spreading into a nearly horizontal sheet of tar. Most material, under pressure, “creeps” in this way, although rocks deform very, very slowly.
Calculations show that the growing upward bulges of large crater floors on the Moon should occur to their current extent in only 10,000 to 10,000,000 years. Large, steep-walled craters exist even on Venus and Mercury, where gravity is greater, and temperatures are hot enough to melt lead. Therefore, creep rates on those planets should be even greater. Most large craters on the Moon, Venus, and Mercury are thought to have formed more than 4,000,000,000 years ago. Because these craters show no sign of “creep,” these bodies seem to be relatively young.
A surprising amount of heat is flowing out of the Moon from just below its surface, and yet the Moon’s interior is relatively cold. Because it has not yet cooled off, the Moon seems much younger than most people had guessed.
Evolutionists believe (1) the Earth and Moon are 4.5 billion years old, and (2) with enough time bacteria will change into people. We have all heard some evolutionists say, “Given enough time, anything can happen.” This simplistic attitude overlooks two things. First, most conceivable events will not happen, because they would violate well-established laws of science. Second, if 4.5 billion years have elapsed, many things should have occurred that obviously have not. Rather than “time being the hero of the plot,” as one prominent evolutionist stated, immense amounts of time cause problems for evolution.
If the Moon began orbiting very near the Earth, it would move to its present position in only 1.2 billion years. Stated another way, if we could run the clock backwards, in 1.2 billion years the Moon would be so close to Earth that ocean tides would sweep over all mountains. Astronomers who are aware of this problem call it “the lunar crisis.” Notice that this conclusion does not say that the Earth-Moon system is 1.2 billion years old; it only says that the Earth-Moon system must be less than 1.2 billion years old. Had the Moon begun orbiting Earth slightly inside the Moon’s present orbit, its age would be much less. Obviously, something is wrong with either the law of gravity or evolutionists’ belief that the Earth-Moon system is 4.5 billion years old. Most astute people would place their confidence in the law of gravity, which has been verified by tens of thousands of experiments.
According to Newton’s law of gravitation, the Moon’s gravitational force pulls on Earth’s center of mass (C) with a force proportional to 1/R2. Water particle A directly under the Moon is one Earth radius (r) closer, so it is pulled by a force proportional to 1/(R-r)2. The difference between these forces is proportional to:
Because r is much less than R, the numerator on the right is almost 2rR and its denominator is almost R4. Therefore, the force difference producing the tides and the tide heights are approximately proportional to
Because Earth’s radius (r) is constant, we can conclude that the height of the tides is proportional to 1/R3. For example, if the Earth-Moon distance suddenly doubled, the tides caused by the Moon would be only 1/8th as high.
How do tides affect the Moon’s orbit and the Earth’s spin rate? Surprisingly, the tidal bulges do not line up directly under the Moon. This is because the spinning Earth carries the bulges out of alignment. If Earth spun faster in the past, the misalignment would have been even greater.
Let’s think of Earth as composed of two parts: a spherical portion and the tidal bulges—both water and solid tides. Gs is the gravitational force the Moon feels from the spherical portion of Earth. Because Gs is aligned with the centers of Earth and Moon, it does not alter the Moon’s orbit. However, the near tidal bulge, because it is offset, pulls the Moon in a direction shown by Gn, with a tangential component, Fn, in the direction of the Moon’s orbital motion. Fn accelerates the Moon in the direction it is moving, flinging it into an increasingly larger orbit. The far tidal bulge has an opposite but slightly weaker effect—weaker because it is farther from the Moon. The far bulge produces a gravitational force, Gf, and a retarding force on the Moon, Ff. The net strength of this accelerating force is (Fn - Ff). It can also be thought of as a thrust pushing the Moon tangential to its orbit, moving the Moon farther from Earth. This accelerating force allows us to calculate an upper limit on the age of the Moon. Today’s recession rate has been precisely measured at 3.82 cm/yr, but as you will see, it was faster in the past.
Conversely, the Moon’s net gravitational pull applies an equal and opposite force on Earth’s tidal bulges, slowing Earth’s spin. In other words, the Earth spun slightly faster in the past.
How does (Fn - Ff) relate to the Earth-Moon separation distance (R)? Using similar triangles,
where y is the misalignment distance of each tidal bulge, m is the Moon’s mass, mb is the mass of each tidal bulge, and G is the gravitational constant. Solving for (Fn - Ff)
Equation 1b showed the mass of a tidal bulge, mb, is proportional to 1/R3, that is
where C1 is the constant of proportionality. Therefore
The velocity of the Moon (or any body in a circular orbit) is
where M is Earth’s mass (or the mass of the central body). Differentiating both sides with respect to time (t) and solving for
Gives
Because the Moon’s tangential acceleration,
is equal to
which is known from equation (2)
The slight displacement of the tidal bulge (y), as mentioned earlier, is proportional to the difference in the Earth’s spin rate (w) and the Moon’s angular velocity (wL). In other words,
Substituting (4) into (3) and replacing the product of all constants by C gives
C is found by using today’s values
Kepler’s third law shows how (w - wL) varies with R:
Applying the law of conservation of angular momentum gives
where the constant L is the angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system, and P is Earth’s polar moment of inertia. Combining (7) and (8) gives
Substituting (6), (7), and (9) into (5) gives us the final equation. Because it has no closed-form solution, it will be solved by numerical iteration. The steps begin by setting the clock to zero and R to its present value of 384,400 km. Then time is stepped backwards in small increments (dt) until the centers of the Moon and Earth are only 15,000 km apart. Had this happened, ocean tides would have steadily grown to a ridiculous 12.8 km (8 miles) high and left marks on Earth that would be—but obviously are not—visible.
The QuickBasic program that solves this system of equations gives 1.2 billion years as the upper limit for the age of the Moon. (If the Moon began moving away from Earth 1.2 billion years ago, the Earth would have rotated once every 4.9 hours.)
Two complicated effects were neglected which would further reduce this upper limit for the Moon’s age.
1. Evolutionists believe Earth formed by gravitational accretion of smaller bodies. If so, the impacts would have left a molten Earth. The Earth, throughout its history, would have been less rigid than it is today. Therefore, tidal bulges would have been larger, causing the Moon to spiral away from the Earth even faster than we calculated here.
2. Internal friction from tidal stretching of the solid Earth reduces Earth’s spin velocity. A greater value for w in the past would have increased the tidal misalignment and the Moon’s recession over what we assumed above. This would have been especially severe if the Earth had been less rigid in the past.
Incorporating these effects into the above analysis would make the upper limit on the Moon’s age even less than 1.2 billion years.
One might argue that 1.2 billion years ago the Moon was captured by the Earth or blasted from the Earth by an extraterrestrial collision. These events would have placed the Moon in a very elongated orbit. Today, Earth’s Moon and most of the other 155 moons in the solar system are in a nearly circular orbits. So many circular, or near circular, orbits are difficult to explain with any rigor. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the Moon (1) was captured, (2) was blasted from Earth by an extraterrestrial collision, or (3) somehow began orbiting Earth 1.2 billion years ago. Its orbit is too circular.
Beside mountain-eroding tides, what other implication would a 1.2-billion-year-old Moon have for organic evolution and the age of Earth? Evolutionists claim that certain fossils are 2.8–3.5 billion years old. Had the Moon begun orbiting Earth 1.2 billion years ago, such fossils would have been pulverized by the havoc of gigantic tides. Evidently, the Moon did not originate near Earth. This further reduces the maximum age of the Moon.
All other dating techniques must assume how fast the dating clock has always ticked and the clock’s initial setting. For example, radiometric techniques assume, with much less certainty, that each radioactive isotope has a constant half-life. This analysis on the Moon’s recession assumes that only the law of gravity has been constant. Neither assumption can be proven, but there is no doubt which assumptions scientists would favor. If Newton’s law of gravitation did not hold in the past, our scientific foundations would crumble. However, if the Moon is less than 1.2 billion years old, a few evolutionary preconceptions must be discarded. But that’s scientific progress.