• CSC Home Page
  • Order Book
  • Table of Contents
  • Preface
  • Endorsements
  • Part I: Scientific Case for Creation
    • Life Sciences
    • Astronomical and Physical Sciences
    • Earth Sciences
    • References and Notes
  • Part II: Fountains of the Great Deep
    • The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview
    • The Origin of Ocean Trenches and the Ring of Fire
    • Liquefaction: The Origin of Strata and Layered Fossils
    • The Origin of the Grand Canyon
    • The Origin of Limestone
    • Frozen Mammoths
    • The Origin of Comets
    • The Origin of Asteroids and Meteoroids
  • Part III: Frequently Asked Questions
  • Technical Notes
  • Index

  • Previous Page
  • Next Page

This is the online edition of In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, 8th Edition (2008),  by Dr. Walt Brown. It is designed to be read online.
Copyright © 1995–2008, Center for Scientific Creation. All rights reserved.

Click here to order the hardbound print edition of this online book.

[ The Scientific Case for Creation > References and Notes > 48.   Origin of the Moon]

48.   Origin of the Moon

a

. “The whole subject of the origin of the moon must be regarded as highly speculative.” Robert C. Haymes, Introduction to Space Science (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1971), p. 209.

u

On 10 November 1971, Dr. Harold Urey, a Nobel prize-winning chemist and lunar scientist, stated “I do not know the origin of the moon, I’m not sure of my own or any other’s models, I’d lay odds against any of the models proposed being correct.” Robert Treash, “Magnetic Remanence in Lunar Rocks,” Pensee, Vol. 2, May 1972, p. 22.

u

“In astronomical terms, therefore, the Moon must be classed as a well-known object, but astronomers still have to admit shamefacedly that they have little idea as to where it came from. This is particularly embarrassing, because the solution of the mystery was billed as one of the main goals of the US lunar exploration programme.” David W. Hughes, “The Open Question in Selenology,” Nature, Vol. 327, 28 May 1987, p. 291.

b

. Haymes, p. 209.

c

. Paul M. Steidl, The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), pp. 77–79.

u

M. Mitchell Waldrop, “The Origin of the Moon,” Science, Vol. 216, 7 May 1982, pp. 606–607.

u

“If the Moon had separated from the Earth, it would either have broken away completely or returned, but it could not have gone into orbit.”  Stacey, p. 38.

d

. “We conclude that an Earth system with multiple moons is the final result unless some particularly severe constraints on initial conditions in the disk are met.” Robin M. Canup and Larry W. Esposito, “Accretion of the Moon from an Impact-Generated Disk,” Icarus, Vol. 119, February 1996, p. 427.

e

. “... no reasonable means to rid the Earth/Moon system of this excess angular momentum has yet been proposed.” Shigeru Ida et al., “Lunar Accretion from an Impact-Generated Disk,” Nature, Vol. 389, 25 September 1997, p. 357.

f

. “This is a problem for the giant impact theory, says [Erik] Hauri. ‘It’s hard to imagine a scenario in which a giant impact melts, completely, the moon, and at the same time allows it to hold onto its water,’ he says. ‘That’s a really, really difficult knot to untie.’ ” Nell Greenfieldboyce, quoting Erik Hauri, “Glass Beads from Moon Hint of Watery Past,” www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92383117, 12 July 2008. [See Endnote 17 on page 289.]

g

. Jack J. Lissauer, “It’s Not Easy to Make the Moon,” Nature, Vol. 389, 25 September 1997, pp. 327–328.

  • Previous Page
  • Next Page

This site is best viewed with a screen resolution of 1024 x 768 (XGA) or higher and a browser that supports cascading style sheets.
We have tested the site in Internet Explorer (Win), Netscape (Win), Safari (Mac), and Firefox (Mac and Win).
Please let us know if you have any suggestions or find any problems with the site.

Updated on Friday, February 26
Copyright © 1995–2008
Center for Scientific Creation
http://www.creationscience.com

(602) 955-7663