Origin of the Moon

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

All the prevailing, atheistic theories of the origin of the Moon were completely disproved by the lunar landings and studies of the lunar rocks afterwards. The material lacked iron that permeates the Earth's crust.

Specifically, each of these prevailing scientific theories was disproved by the lunar landings:[1]

  • The Moon formed in an orbit around Earth at the same time that Earth formed.
    • This theory was disproved upon learning that the Moon has proportionally far less iron in it than the Earth.
  • The Moon formed in a part of the solar system that was low in iron, and was later captured into an orbit around the Earth.
    • This was also disproved by examination of lunar rocks, which exhibit the same oxygen isotope composition as the Earth, unlike rocks known to come from other sources in the solar system, e.g. Mars.
  • The Earth was originally spinning so fast that it spun off a fragment of lower density (iron-poor) material which became the Moon.
    • This solves the isotopic similarity and the relative lack of iron, but an analysis of the total angular momentum and energy involved ruled out this possibility.

Giant-Impact Model[edit]

For ten years after the lunar landings, atheistic scientists lacked any accepted theory about the Moon's origin. In 1984, an international meeting was convened in Kona, Hawaii, for the purpose of agreeing on a new theory for the origin of the Moon.[2] The attendees at the meeting agreed upon the following "giant-impact model," which was first proposed in 1975 but which had not yet been generally accepted.[3] Nearly two decades later, Scientific American observed that:[4]

Unfortunately, researchers have had trouble getting the giant-impact model to work without the contrivances that scuttled earlier theories.
Four facts and three parameters is a recipe for contradiction. To explain the moon's low iron content, you need to avoid a grazing collision (corresponding to a large impact angle), lest too much of the impactor's iron spill into orbit. Then, to explain the angular momentum, you need to compensate for the smallish angle with a hefty impactor. Then, to explain the moon's mass, you need to adjust the proto-Earth's mass. In the end, you might find that the total mass is incorrect.

The Giant-Impact Model proposes that an impact with a large planetesimal (asteroid-like body) released a great quantity of debris into orbit, a portion of which collected under the influence of gravity. There is no direct evidence for this theory. It is supported by atheistic scientists, however, primarily due to lack of any alternative explanation for them. They try to fit the observations to this theory as follows:

  • The lack of iron, provided the impact of the planetesimal happened relatively late in the earth's formation and after the Earth's iron had sunk towards its core. In that manner the Moon might possibly have picked up mantle from the Earth that has less iron. Most of the planetesimal itself would have sunk into the earth's core.
  • The similar oxygen isotope composition between the Moon and Earth could possibly be explained by such a collision, provided the Moon were then formed from debris dislodged from the Earth by the collision.
  • A high-velocity collision might be sufficient to release enough energy to place a substantial mass of the Earth's crust into orbit.

Criticisms of the Giant-Impact Model[edit]

This new theory has been criticized as lacking testability and falsifiability, which are essential aspects of science as explained by Karl Popper. While it seems possible prima facie to test the theory, it is likely that atheistic scientists will merely amend the theory to skirt the failures of such tests, rendering the theory extremely difficult if not impossible to falsify.

Scientists did find that none of three proposed tests are "supportive of the Giant Impact model."[5]

Another article noted that the Moon is lacking in siderophilic elements (Au, Co, Fe, Ir, Mn, Mo, Ni, Os, Pd, Pt, Re, Rh, Ru) found on Earth, and this indicates that the Moon was not formed by materials broken off of Earth, thereby demonstrating the implausibility of the theory.[6]

A third study found that "the bulk composition of the Moon differs significantly from that of the terrestrial mantle" and that "[t]he high bulk FeO content of the Moon rules out the derivation of the proto-lunar material from any but a small fraction of the terrestrial mantle."[7]

Scientific American concluded:[4]

Considering all the twists and turns in lunar science, nobody claims that the models are complete just yet.


  1. Planetary Science Institute: The Origin of the Moon
  2. Id.
  3. Id.
  4. 4.0 4.1 http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=5&articleID=000A90B0-C919-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21 (emphasis added).
  5. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/origin98/pdf/4045.pdf
  6. http://www.ias.ac.in/jessci/dec2005/ilc-3.pdf
  7. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc97/pdf/1070.PDF