Guessing Again about the Moon's Origin
The origin of Earth's moon is another of those burrs under the saddle of secular scientists. Since it's anathema to even consider that there's a Creator, and since they're constrained to promote cosmic evolution (after all, there's money in it), speculations about the moon's origin keep changing.
Their guesses keep on changing because the facts don't fit none too good. One conjecture becomes dominant for a while, then another replaces is. Facts interfere again, so yet another is brought forward. Now they have a story that is unfit for 1950s pulp sci-fi, but is considered "science". Why pays these jaspers? Oh, right. We do. Through our tax dollars. They seem unaware that the moon is unique in many ways and specially fitted for life right here.
 |
| Credit: NASA / ISS / Col. Jeff Williams (usage does not imply endorsement of site's contents) |
In my lifetime there has been tremendous evolution in man’s ideas about the moon’s origin. In the 1960s, planetary scientists were convinced that the moon formed one of three ways . . .
But by the 1970s, it was clear, both from physical problems with each theory and from lunar composition measured from samples Apollo astronauts brought to earth, that none of the three theories were correct. Hence, by the late 1970s, planetary scientists developed a hybrid model of the moon’s origin, a scenario that hopefully kept the advantages of each of the three basic theories, while avoiding the shortcomings of each . . .
While this remained the standard theory for more than three decades, apparently there still were problems with the moon’s composition that this model did not explain well.To read the article in it's entirety, click on "A New Theory for the Moon’s Origin".