a program on the (unproven) Theory of Gravition. No mention of Intelligent Falling of course!

Rank atheistic avoidance of the Truth!

And I just saw the History of the Universe segment on The Origins of the Moon and guess what. The scientists have come up with no satisfactory explanation for the origins of the moon. At the present time they don't even have a credible theory.

Dd

I suppose creationists have a theory...is it called Intelligent Mooning?

predicto:

And I just saw the History of the Universe segment on The Origins of the Moon and guess what. The scientists have come up with no satisfactory explanation for the origins of the moon. At the present time they don't even have a credible theory.

Dd

Which translates as they have several competing theories, but haven't settles on one...

thus to Dawwgy's mind, the ONLY "logical" one is..."God made it on the 4th day in 4004 BC".

Currently, my take on it is that all of the theories on the creation of the moon have issues with them. The current dominant theory has to do with a large asteroid striking the earth early on. This is then used to explain the tilt in the Earth's axis and the moon's elemental similarity to the earth. There are however major problems with this theory which is why it is not universally accepted. For example, the unusually low composition of iron does not match available data and the difference in the tilt of the axis of the earth and the lunar orbit pose another problem.

The problem with assuming that you have a completely separate formation is that the isotopic profile of oxygen is largely similar. This would suggest that the moon was not left-over dust which condensed outside the well of the initial pool of that which became earth.

My own thinking though is that the shape of the moon and its orbital profile suggest a separate formation regardless of the isotopic problems. The moon's orbit is no further off the ecliptic than any planet's suggesting it formed directly from the same disk which formed the rest of the planets. The isotopic profile might be soluble if the moon formed far enough out that only the very heavy elements were drawn out of the original dust ball and back to earth.

So I favor the (largely currently out of favor) condensation theory.

Oh heck! I did that in the late 70's.

Dd

Presently, that is as valid as any theory in science. And it is not a problem of adopting one of many plausible scenarios. It is a matter of finding one without many fatal flaws.

Dd

Perhaps a moon had formed and then experienced an astral catastrophy like the one in Biblical Flood and Ice Epoch by Patten in the mid 60's. The impact of a big stoney ice meteor knocked enough junk loose from the moon to strip it of its heavier parts ike iron? Fun, fun, fun.

The jumble of rotational axis and moon orbits off the general plane of rotation of the solar system can be explained by astral vistors and their gravitational effects. For instance, Roche's limit dictates that the average stoney/ice comet would break up and hit the earth like a shotgun blast more than in one big peice. Maybe one of those chunks of ice hit the moon and without air, hit full force, melted the iron elements and blew them into space, they being denser reached escape velocity and fell like stoney meteors about day four 4004 BC, huh?

Dd

Dd