Learning About The Moon Has Challenged Theories

Walking along the lakeshore at night listening to the sounds of the water gently hitting the shoreline, then looking up to gaze at the moon. It dominates the night-time sky, controlling the tides, admired for its design from God, sparking curiosity on what it holds. As a young man, I dreamed of what it would be like to live on the moon and looking at the earth from there while exploring the utter most parts of it!

NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), now past its first year of operation, has revealed some interesting things, our moon is more complex than previously thought. Secular science outlets deem it’s age (4.5 billion years) as a foregone conclusion while creating a story about a late heavy bombardment 3.9 billion years ago from the asteroid belt, formulating the maria (seas) of lava, smaller craters from near-Earth impactors, and ongoing space weathering and regolith formation as the moon cooled down into the body we see today.

New discoveries have challenged the story. This is evident with three papers that were published on September 17 (here, here and here), “For the first time we’re actually detecting how complex the lunar surface is,” one of the authors said, Benjamin Greenhagen of JPL, remarked.  “It’s a bit of a paradigm shift.”


A popular science site contained headlines like “NASA’s LRO Exposes Moon’s Complex, Turbulent Youth” while others like National Geographic contained “New Type of Moon Volcano Discovered” and science daily with it’s usual take, “Moon’s Craters Give New Clues to Early Solar System Bombardment.” All the reports agreed that these finding makes their story about the moon’s past more complex.

As the data continues to get better, are planetary scientists headed in the right direction in learning about the moon’s origin? Are they getting any closer to a real explanation about the moon’s origin? Scientists in play now are at the stage of admitting more anomalies in the current paradigm which is considered routine in science.  Only when these anomalies accumulate to the point of unwieldiness, or younger scientists enter the field with different ideas, can the paradigm get replaced.

The current paradigm includes a time framework and numerous unproveable assumptions.  Entrenched assumptions currently include the Age of the Solar System (4.5 billion years).  However, the new data points to a youthful moon rather it’s assumed billions of years range. In that old age framework, the moon was suppose to be frozen, producing no activity or in other words, geologically dead. But Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter showed scientists evidence to the contrary. The moon is still forming new surface features with incredible shrinking activity!

Also, the moon contains young-looking lava flows!  Volcanism was assumed to have stopped billions of years ago on  the moon. Crater-count dating estimates the lava flows to be only 2.5 million years – far younger than the ancient times when volcanism was supposed to have stopped.

Some critics are quick to point out, this particular estimate is not 6,000 years and their old age framework just needs the data to be tweaked into it because at 2.5 million years with or without the possibility of it being younger, the old age story unravels and becomes useless to go by.  Evolution of the moon (and everything else we see today) requires vast amounts of time! The fact of the matter is, the estimate is closer to what the Bible gives than what the story on how long it took to evolve!

Why isn’t the moon dead if it’s billions of years old as predicted by evolutionary theory?  How could gas and lava get to the surface if it’s suppose to be frozen out? Why does the surface differ so much from one area to the next? A host of many specialized conditions are then dreamed up to explain the anomalies.

Scientists are often oblivious with their assumptions while spending time on paradigms. Faith without evidence is invoked with the anomalies which are mere puzzles to them that will be solved within a approved consensus. “Our Created Moon” by Whitcomb is an excellent book which explores the moon’s purposeful design.

So when you walk outside at night and look up to the stars and observe the moon, not only think of it’s rarity and beauty but this reality, without God’s design, we couldn’t exist on earth!



Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Learning About The Moon Has Challenged Theories

  1. New discoveries have challenged this story. This is evident with three papers that were published on September 17 (here, here and here),

    Michael certainly misinterprets the content of the three Science papers he references. In fact, I doubt he has even read them. Of course, he can prove me wrong easily enough:

    Michael, what is the last word in the text on the last page of each of the Science papers? There. We’ll see.

    This however, is only part of the general inquiry into What, if any, qualifications does Michael possess for discussing any field of science? Why has he not, after more than a year, been able to review Signature in the Cell, much less provide any support for it? Then we have the readership numbers Michael withholds after challenging Eelco. And, by the way, we still have the outstanding question about mitochondrial Eve, don’t we? Michael was asked to explained how it can happen that the woman who is mtEve now is not the same woman as the one who was mtEve 6,000 years ago.

  2. Michael….

    Since you claim that evolutionary theory makes claimes about the formation of the moon…. Please do me one favor….

    Please define “evolutionary theory,” since your definition seems to be different from from what any scientist says it is.

  3. Walking along the lakeshore at night listening to the sounds of the water gently hitting the shoreline, then looking up to gaze at the moon.

    If you really gaze at the moon that much, you will have noticed that it looks much, much bigger when near the horizon, than when it is high in the sky. So, from your copious background knowledge of astronomy, you can explain to the rest of us how this well-known phenomenon arises.

    Can’t you?

  4. I could never remember how to tell by looking at it whether the moon is waxcing or waning. Then someone gave me this handy little mnemonic:

    Luna cum crescit decrescit, decrescit crescit.

    Literally translated, “When the moon waxes, it wanes; when it wanes it waxes.” Of course, the translation is no help at all, because you have to do it in Latin. When the moon waxes (crescit), it looks like a “D” (Decrescit). When it wanes (decrescit), it looks like a “C” (Crescit).

    See? Now isn’t that easy?

    You never knew Latin would be useful, did you?

    (Actually, the only other use I know of it Radio Finland’s weekly short-wave news broadcast in Latin—“Nuntii Latini.” Or, as they advertise themselves, “Nuntii Latini, conspectus rerum internationalium hebdomadalis, est programma Radiophoniae Finnicae Generalis (YLE) in terrarum orbe unicum.”

  5. Michael concentrates on recent news items to advance his position. If he were just a skosh less ignorant of science, he could pick up some of the true critics of mainstream science.

    Currently, I’m taking a lecture series on the knowledge problem in science. In today’s session, the lecturer mentioned Halton Arp. Now here is an astronomer who asserts that many objects with large red-shifts are actually much nearer to us than others maintain. If they are neare, then, of course, they are younger.

    Why does not Michael put forth Halton Arp? (A bonus: His middle name is “Christian”!) He’s only a hop, skip, and a mouse click away in Wikipedia.

    This is only one of the reasons that scientists laugh at creationists. The creationists become so fixated on the little bitty anomalies, that the larger issues, the ones that have potential to shake the foundations, lie entirely beyond their ken.

  6. Secular science outlets [sic] deem it’s [sic] age (4.5 billion years) as a foregone conclusion while creating a story about a late heavy bombardment 3.9 billion years ago from the asteroid belt, formulating the maria (seas) of lava, smaller craters from near-Earth impactors, and ongoing space weathering and regolith formation as the moon cooled down into the body we see today.

    New discoveries have challenged the story.

    Yet another failure of reading comprehension. The cited papers in fact confirm the “story” of a 3.9Bya bombardment. For example, Greenhagen et al, “Global Silicate Mineralogy of the Moon from the Diviner Lunar Radiometer” (Science, 329:1507-1513) notes explicitly that these events occurred in the Late Imbrian epoch. A quick side trip to Wikipedia gives dates of 3800-3200Mya for this period. What the papers found were additional impacts at a later date, and additional tectonic activity at later dates than previously thought.

    Michael really should try to get straight the difference between moving the date of an event, and adding another event at a later date. These are different. Except perhaps to creationists.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s