Secularists Still Confounded over Moon Origins

Know why adherents of long ages have so many speculations about the origins of the moon? Because none of them work. An idea gets the limelight for a while, gets shot down, someone dreams up a new lunar origin story and leads a cavalry charge to promote it, then that fizzles as well. After the scenario happens a few times, secular scientists try to prop up the best of the hypotheses that failed previously.

Silvery Moonlight, John Atkinson Grimshaw, 1882

The most popular view is that our moon was formed by an impact in the thrilling days of yesteryear, according to Darwinist time and assumptions. Even though water was found in lunar rocks, the impact concept was still embraced. The whole thing requires a bit of dealing from the bottom of the deck, but the impact thing still fails. Any cosmic evolution idea fails because none of them deal with the facts. Truth is, the solar system was created relatively recently, and the evidence is a far better fit for the facts.

Science built on naturalism has always struggled with the origin of our nearest neighbour, the moon. Three competing ideas have previously been suggested, only to all be shown to be highly improbable. These comprise the fission theory, in which the moon separated from the earth; the capture theory, in which the earth captured a wandering moon; and the condensation theory, in which the earth and moon formed from the condensation of the same dust cloud. Researchers rarely leave a theoretical vacuum.

After these ideas were disproved, planetary scientists invented the idea that the moon formed after a collision between the earth and a Mars-sized object. It is called the ‘giant impact hypothesis’ and has been the reigning model for the past 30 years. Some have come to believe this hypothesis as a fact.

To read the rest, click on "Confusion over moon origins — Naturalistic origin of the moon comes under hard times". You may also want to read about a new candidate at "Guessing Again about the Moon's Origin".