REALITY CHECK:
(Unless otherwise noted, quotations below are from the book by Henry Morris, That Their Words May Be Used Against Them, available from the Institute for Creation Research. Links are to articles and papers on the World Wide Web. As you visit the links below, please take time to tour the websites that host them and become familiar with the resources they offer. )
Bondi, Herman, "Letters Section," New Scientist (August 21, 1980; quote by Karl Popper, reference to).
p. 611
"As an erstwhile cosmologist, I speak with feeling of
the fact that theories of the origin of the Universe have been disproved by present
day empirical evidence, as have various theories of the origin of the
Solar System."
Jeffreys, Sir Harold, The Earth: Its Origin, History and Physical Constitution (Cambridge, England: University Press, 1970), 525 pp. Jeffreys has long been one of the world’s top planetary scientists.
p. 359
"To sum up, I think that all suggested accounts of
the origin of the Solar System are subject to serious objections. The
conclusion in the present state of the subject would be that the system
cannot exist."
Solar Geometry - A Case for Divine Design of the Solar System by Alan Bennett
Anonymous, "Whence the Moon?" Scientific American, vol. 254 (June 1986), pp. 67, 69.
p. 67
"At times when close-up images of the moons of Uranus
are shown on television one might think fundamental questions about the
earth’s own moon had been settled long ago. Far from it: it is not even
clear how the moon formed. According to one theory, it is a piece of the
earth’s mantle that was spun off early in the planet’s history;
according to another, it formed in an independent orbit but was captured by
the earth’s gravity; still another holds that the moon and the earth
accreted close together and simultaneously. Now a set of computer
simulations lends support to a fourth mechanism: the impact on the earth of
a planetary body a little larger than Mars."
p. 67
"Then there is the question of the moon’s anomalous
composition. Compared with the earth it is severely depleted in volatile
chemical elements, a fact that none of the three theories accounts for
well."
Drake, Michael J., "Geochemical Constraints on the Origin of the Moon," Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, vol. 47 (October 1983), pp. 1759-1767.
p. 1759
"Although it has been fourteen years since the first
lunar samples were returned to Earth by the Apollo 11 Mission, the origin of
the moon remains unresolved."
Boss, Alan P., "The Origin of the Moon," Science, vol. 231 (January 24, 1986), pp. 341-345.
p. 341
"The scientific justification for the Apollo missions
to the moon was largely to determine how the moon originated. Sixteen years
after the first Apollo landing, the theory of the formation of the
terrestrial planets appears to have advanced sufficiently to provide an
answer to the question of lunar formation. While many important details
remain to be investigated, it now appears that the moon was formed after a
giant impact of a roughly Mars-sized body on the protoearth. The impact
injected a significant fraction of the mass of the impactor and the
protoearth into geocentric orbit, where it later coagulated into the moon.
Recent work has considerably strengthened the view that the older hypotheses
of lunar origin (fission, capture, and binary accretion) are either
physically impossible or extremely improbable."
p. 345
"Although we will never be able to state with
absolute certainty that we know the origin of the moon, the giant impact
hypothesis may well be the most probable one."
Lunar “geology” falls far short of supporting evolutionists’ belief in a 4.5 billion year old moon. (Condensed from a 1998 presentation by Dr. Danny Faulkner.)
Bondi, Herman, "Letters Section," New Scientist (August 21, 1980; quote by Karl Popper, reference to).
p. 611
"As an erstwhile cosmologist, I speak with feeling of
the fact that theories of the origin of the Universe have been disproved by present
day empirical evidence, as have various theories of the origin of the
Solar System."
—a treatment of the earth-moon system and its implications for the creation-evolution debate.
Hecht, Jeff, "The Making of a Moon," New Scientist, vol. 155 (August 2, 1997), p. 8.
p. 8
"The leading theory of how the Moon formed is in
trouble. A physicist announced this week that if it was born after a
planet-sized body collided with the Earth in its youth, as many scientists
assumed, the Earth and Moon should have far more angular momentum than they
do today."
p. 8
"[Robin] Canup isn’t about to abandon the giant impact
theory because all the other theories ‘have even more severe problems,’ she
says. But, she concedes, ‘this does raise important questions.’"
Geomagnetism and the Age of the Solar System by Wayne Spencer
Questions or comments? Please email jim@darwinisdead.com .
Please check back often. These pages are ...
A CONTINUAL WORK IN PROGRESS