2,732
edits
Changes
Added real science
For ten years after the lunar landings, non-creationist 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.<ref>''Id.''</ref> 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.<ref>''Id.''</ref>
For ten years after the lunar landings, non-creationist 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.<ref>''Id.''</ref> 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.<ref>''Id.''</ref>
This theory proposes 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 non-creationist scientists, however, because only it might explain the following:
This theory proposes 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. The "giant impact theory" explains the following:
**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 could pick up mantle from the Earth that has less iron. Most of the planetesimal itself would have sunk into the earth's core.
**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 could pick 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 be explained by such a collision, provided the Moon were then formed from debris dislodged from the Earth by the collision.
**The similar oxygen isotope composition between the Moon and Earth could 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.
**A high-velocity collision might be sufficient to release enough energy to place a substantial mass of the Earth's crust into orbit.
Creationists criticize this theory as an inadequate explanation of the moon's geological content, since it seems to differ so greatly from Earth. However, new analyses of the type of impact likely to create a moon-sized object have deduced that the moon is instead 85% composed of the impacting object, and ''only 15%'' composed of terrestrial materials. This finding, complete with continued scholarship on the subject, suggests that the giant impact model is a complete theory. Like all scientific theories, though, it continues to evolve as new evidence is discovered.<ref>"Linking The Earth To The Moon," Space Daily, 1 August 2006</ref>
== Criticism of the Giant-Impact Model ==
== Criticism of the Giant-Impact Model ==
:Considering all the twists and turns in lunar science, nobody claims that the models are complete just yet.
:Considering all the twists and turns in lunar science, nobody claims that the models are complete just yet.
Of course, all of these criticisms are answered by the fact that the moon is composed of mostly extraterrestrial rock from the object that impacted the Earth, creating the moon.<ref>See ''Space Daily'', supra.</ref>
== Reference ==
== Reference ==
<references/>
<references/>