The Moon's Origin is Uncertain Despite Mainstream Scientific Theories
by Owen Borville
February 28, 2019
Astronomy
What is the origin of the Earth’s moon? This is a question that has intrigued many throughout human history. Is it possible that the moon hit the Earth? Could the moon have hit the Earth and began orbiting the Earth afterward? Where did the moon come from? The Book of Genesis (1:14-19) describes the moon's creation on Day 4 of creation week, along with the sun, planets, and the stars. Is it is possible that the Earth could have swallowed a planet during its early formation? Several theories have been proposed over the years by mainstream scientists.
Older theories included the fission theory, which was proposed by George Darwin, the son of Charles Darwin. The Fission theory said that the Earth was rotating so fast that a piece of the Earth was projected into space but was captured by the Earth’s gravitational field. However, scientists today question whether the Earth could have been spinning fast enough to eject a piece into orbit. In addition, composition differences between the Earth and moon place the fission theory into question.
The capture theory proposes that the moon originated from outside the Earth's orbit and was captured by the Earth’s gravitational field. Because of the differences in chemical properties of the Earth and the moon, the idea of the moon coming from an outside source is strengthened. However, it is difficult to explain how the Earth could have captured the moon without a collision occurring. In addition, the possibility of the moon being captured by the Earth's gravitational field is slim, considering that it would have to cross at the right angle and speed at the right time.
The co-creation theory says that the Earth and moon formed at the same time from smaller "planetesimals" merging together but doesn't explain how the moon began to orbit the Earth or does not account for the moon's much lower iron content.
The impact theory, the most popular theory of moon formation by mainstream scientists, says that a planet the size of Mars named Theia hit the earth 4.5 billion years ago while a portion of the Earth was simultaneously ejected that eventually became the moon. Mainstream science favors this theory because moon rocks apparently show a certain similarities to Earth rocks, including the near identical oxygen isotope ratios of the two bodies. In addition, the theory seems to better explain the small iron core of the moon, as most of the Earth material being ejected to form the moon would likely be from the large mantle layer and less from the Earth's central iron-rich core. However, not all mainstream scientists agree with the impact theory and point out problems with the theory (1). The similarity of composition and chemical makeup of the two planetary bodies are still being debated by mainstream scientists, which would give evidence of an impact collision and/or merger. While some minerals on the two planetary bodies match well in the composition, the moon has much less iron and is void of water. Mainstream scientists continue to stick with the impact theory despite disagreements over its validity because of the lack of better alternative theories.
The moon has a near circular orbit and only one side of the moon faces the earth at all times, as the "dark side" of the moon is never visible from Earth. It is also interesting that the moon is just the right distance from Earth to completely cover the sun during an eclipse.
Because of the uncertainty with naturalistic origins of the moon and its unique orbit, some creationists have explained that the moon has a supernatural origin. In other words, the moon was a special creation by God during creation week. Obviously, more research is needed but there is no strong naturalistic model by mainstream scientists for the moon's origin at this point. Creationists endorse a special creation during creation week, but a scientific explanation for the moon's origin has been difficult to produce. This lack of a suitable scientific explanation for the moon's origin can be a strength for the creation model. Despite the popularity of the impact model by mainstream scientists, there are still unsolved problems with this model. In particular, the near-perfect circular orbit of the moon is difficult to explain with the impact model. Also, the moon's near spherical shape certainly does not resemble a fragment. These problems point toward a special creation and not a random, spontaneous impact.
(1) Ruzicka, A., Snyder, G.A. and Taylor, L.A., Giant Impact and Fission Hypotheses for the origin of the moon: a critical review of some geochemical evidence, International Geology Review 40:851–864, 1998.
by Owen Borville
February 28, 2019
Astronomy
What is the origin of the Earth’s moon? This is a question that has intrigued many throughout human history. Is it possible that the moon hit the Earth? Could the moon have hit the Earth and began orbiting the Earth afterward? Where did the moon come from? The Book of Genesis (1:14-19) describes the moon's creation on Day 4 of creation week, along with the sun, planets, and the stars. Is it is possible that the Earth could have swallowed a planet during its early formation? Several theories have been proposed over the years by mainstream scientists.
Older theories included the fission theory, which was proposed by George Darwin, the son of Charles Darwin. The Fission theory said that the Earth was rotating so fast that a piece of the Earth was projected into space but was captured by the Earth’s gravitational field. However, scientists today question whether the Earth could have been spinning fast enough to eject a piece into orbit. In addition, composition differences between the Earth and moon place the fission theory into question.
The capture theory proposes that the moon originated from outside the Earth's orbit and was captured by the Earth’s gravitational field. Because of the differences in chemical properties of the Earth and the moon, the idea of the moon coming from an outside source is strengthened. However, it is difficult to explain how the Earth could have captured the moon without a collision occurring. In addition, the possibility of the moon being captured by the Earth's gravitational field is slim, considering that it would have to cross at the right angle and speed at the right time.
The co-creation theory says that the Earth and moon formed at the same time from smaller "planetesimals" merging together but doesn't explain how the moon began to orbit the Earth or does not account for the moon's much lower iron content.
The impact theory, the most popular theory of moon formation by mainstream scientists, says that a planet the size of Mars named Theia hit the earth 4.5 billion years ago while a portion of the Earth was simultaneously ejected that eventually became the moon. Mainstream science favors this theory because moon rocks apparently show a certain similarities to Earth rocks, including the near identical oxygen isotope ratios of the two bodies. In addition, the theory seems to better explain the small iron core of the moon, as most of the Earth material being ejected to form the moon would likely be from the large mantle layer and less from the Earth's central iron-rich core. However, not all mainstream scientists agree with the impact theory and point out problems with the theory (1). The similarity of composition and chemical makeup of the two planetary bodies are still being debated by mainstream scientists, which would give evidence of an impact collision and/or merger. While some minerals on the two planetary bodies match well in the composition, the moon has much less iron and is void of water. Mainstream scientists continue to stick with the impact theory despite disagreements over its validity because of the lack of better alternative theories.
The moon has a near circular orbit and only one side of the moon faces the earth at all times, as the "dark side" of the moon is never visible from Earth. It is also interesting that the moon is just the right distance from Earth to completely cover the sun during an eclipse.
Because of the uncertainty with naturalistic origins of the moon and its unique orbit, some creationists have explained that the moon has a supernatural origin. In other words, the moon was a special creation by God during creation week. Obviously, more research is needed but there is no strong naturalistic model by mainstream scientists for the moon's origin at this point. Creationists endorse a special creation during creation week, but a scientific explanation for the moon's origin has been difficult to produce. This lack of a suitable scientific explanation for the moon's origin can be a strength for the creation model. Despite the popularity of the impact model by mainstream scientists, there are still unsolved problems with this model. In particular, the near-perfect circular orbit of the moon is difficult to explain with the impact model. Also, the moon's near spherical shape certainly does not resemble a fragment. These problems point toward a special creation and not a random, spontaneous impact.
(1) Ruzicka, A., Snyder, G.A. and Taylor, L.A., Giant Impact and Fission Hypotheses for the origin of the moon: a critical review of some geochemical evidence, International Geology Review 40:851–864, 1998.
