Share
A- A A+

Moon formation theories way off orbit

by

Journal-of-creation-cover

Published: 25 July 2013 (GMT+10)

Astronomer Dr Ronald G. Samec reports in the latest Journal of Creation 27(2) that a recent study of moon rocks calls into question the present lunar formation theory.1,2

“This may bring us back full circle to one of the earliest theories—that of George Darwin’s ‘fission hypothesis’”, Samec said.

Samec explained that according to the fission hypothesis, the early earth rotated faster, as more dense elements sunk to its core. When the earth exceeded breakup velocity, the material that would become the moon tore from Pacific Ocean Basin, leaving a scar (ridges).

Uniformitarian scientists, because they assume the world is billions of years old, are still very puzzled about the moon’s magnetic field

“The problem,” Samec explained, “is that the initial spin or angular momentum is not conserved in the present earth–moon system (50% loss). Also, the orbit of the moon and the obliquity of the ecliptic (likewise the inclination of the earth) should coincide, and they do not.”

The earth’s inclination is about 23.5° to the orbital plane (the ecliptic) and the moon’s orbit is inclined by some 5°.

Another theory Samec deals with is that the moon was captured by the earth as it passed by in an earth-crossing orbit. He said that one major problem with this idea is that capture is an extremely rare event.

“Even if this unlikely event took place,” Samec said, “the moon would likely have swung by in a parabolic or an elliptical trajectory, rather than the near-circular orbit of the present day moon.”

Journal of Creation: The in-depth companion to Creation magazine.

A separate article in the Journal about recent moon discoveries by physicist D. Russell Humphreys3 reported findings published by Clément Suavet et al. in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.4 Humphreys explained how measurements of magnetization of lava from a basalt ‘sea’ of the moon conflict with models of how the magnetic field works.

Journal-of-creation

“The report shows that uniformitarian scientists, because they assume the world is billions of years old, are still very puzzled about the moon’s magnetic field,” Humphreys said. “They don’t understand why it was formerly strong but now doesn’t exist, or how it could exist in the first place.”

“On the other hand, the moon’s magnetic data fit creation science theories very well. A Bible-based theory for how God created the initial magnetic fields of planets and moons gives a created (6,000 years ago) field for the moon that is about as strong as the earth’s field is today, in accord with the measurements in the latest moon samples.”

These latest findings from the moon are reported in the latest Journal of Creation along with much other creationist research. The latest issue, 27(2), which is mailing now, has other fascinating reports on a diverse range of issues including:

Journal of Creation: The in-depth companion to Creation magazine.
  • More evidence ‘Lucy’ was an extinct ape.
  • Conflicting approaches to Flood geology.
  • Claims that Genesis 1 is just reworked Babylonian myth.
  • The subtle connection between ‘global warming’ alarmism and the creation–evolution controversy.
  • Appeals to ‘consensus science’ and why they are actually anti-science.
  • Whether the relative timing of radioisotope dates can be applied to biblical geology.
  • Enlightening book reviews:
    1. The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible by Robert J. Hutchinson.
    2. Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Ne-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False by Thomas Nagal.
    3. Revisiting the Days of Genesis by BC. Hodge.
  • … and much more.

Subscribe today and receive your Journal of Creation, beginning with the latest issue and its reports on moon formation theories.

Astounded that creation scientists publish in peer-reviewed journals

Journal of Creation is regarded by many as the world’s premier peer-reviewed creation-science journal.

This cutting-edge periodical will help you:

27-2_p42-43

  • Clarify and help develop your personal worldview.
  • Answer your questions about science and faith.
  • Stay ahead with the latest creationist research.
  • Make connections across scientific disciplines.
  • Defend the accuracy of biblical history.
  • Develop your scientific knowledge and expertise.

The Journal would make a great gift for your relatives and friends who are studying at college. When you give Journal of Creation it will strengthen and motivate them, and give them alternatives to what they are being told in class.

The Journal is published three times a year and posted directly to you. Each issue of the Journal has more than 120 information-packed pages. If you have a high school education and are serious about understanding the big issues of life then the Journal can help you—why not subscribe today?

Journal of Creation is the in-depth companion to Creation magazine.

Brandon from South Africa writes:

I recently showed the Journal of Creation to some of my 4th-year Physics students and they were astounded to see that Creation Scientists also publish in peer-reviewed journals containing ‘hardcore science’. Even more surprising to them was the fact that a solid scientific case can be made in support of biblical creation. Thank you for a fantastic resource!

You too can be an enthused subscriber and make a difference at your college.

Don’t forget, subscribing helps creationist research worldwide!

Subscribe today and receive your copy, with free delivery to your home/office, three times a year.

Related Articles

References

  1. Samec, R.G. Lunar formation—collision theory fails, J. Creation, 27(2):11–12, 2013. Return to text.
  2. Meier, M.M.M., Moon formation: earth’s titanium twin, Nature Geoscience 5(4):240–241, 2012. Return to text.
  3. Humphreys, D.R. More secular confusion about the moon’s former magnetic field, J. Creation, 27(2):12–13, 2013. Return to text.
  4. Suavet, C. et al., Persistence and origin of the lunar core dynamo, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, published online before print on 6 May 2013, www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/05/02/1300341110.full.pdf+html?sid=44d30a0b-9f5a-45e3-8ed5-bafb01b5f5e7, accessed 13 May 2013. Return to text.

You are probably accessing this site because you had questions—just like everyone else. That’s why CMI exists. You can help keep the free answers on this site coming. Support this site

Comments closed
Article closed for commenting.
Only available for 14 days from appearance on front page.
Readers’ comments
Judie S., Australia, 25 July 2013

I'm a little confused.

One paragraph says, "it was formerly strong but now doesn't exist", the next paragraph says the "field for the moon ... is about as strong as the earth’s field is today".

Does the moon have a magnetic field or not? Was it once much stronger? Did I miss something?

Tas Walker responds

Note the words "6,000 years ago" in the sentence "A Bible-based theory for how God created the initial magnetic fields of planets and moons gives a created (6,000 years ago) field for the moon that is about as strong as the earth’s field is today". In other words, the theoretical field for the moon at Creation was about as strong as earth's field is today. The moon does not have a magnetic field today. It would have been clearer if the "is" was a "was", but scientists frequently talk about their models in the present rather than past tense.

Gail S., United States, 1 August 2013

The article just show that God placed the moon just where it should be..it is slowly leaving earth - things are gearing up for the judgement.

Copied to clipboard
8578
Product added to cart.
Click store to checkout.
In your shopping cart

Remove All Products in Cart
Go to store and Checkout
Go to store
Total price does not include shipping costs. Prices subject to change in accordance with your country’s store.