Moon: Formation Theories

"Evolutionists claim that our moon was formed by natural processes without the need for a creator. This view, however, is not supported by science, as all the explanations they propose have major problems.

Explanation 1: from dust
Evolutionists say that our sun and its orbiting planets (i.e. our ‘solarsystem’) arose from a rotating gas/dust cloud approximately 4.5 billion years ago. This is known as the ‘nebular hypothesis’, from Latin, nebula meaning ‘cloud. Some have suggested that the moon simply formed at the same time and sufficiently close to the earth to end up in orbit around it. This is known as the ‘condensation theory’.
--If this explanation were correct, however, we would expect the moon to be akin to a mini Earth, being made up of essentially the same materials. The moon, however, is significantly less dense than the earth, and hence must be made up of different materials.

Explanation 2: a ‘spin-off’
Another suggestion is that an originally molten earth spun so fast that part of it flew off and became the moon. This is known as the ‘fission theory’, from Latin, fissio meaning ‘splitting’, proposed by George Darwin, son of Charles.

--Calculations, however, indicate that the earth’s rotational speed would never have been great enough for this to happen. Another problem is the marked differences between rocks found on the moon and those on the earth. If the moon were once part of the earth, we would expect moon and earth rocks to contain elements in similar amounts; but this is not so.

Explanation 3: from outer space
Some have argued that the moon must have formed elsewhere and, as
it flew through the galaxy, it just happened to pass close enough to

the earth to be captured by its gravity. 
it flew through the galaxy, it just happened to pass close enough to
the earth to be captured by its gravity. 

--If this were so, then we would expect the moon to follow an elongated orbit around the earth, similar to that of Halley’s comet around the sun. The moon’s orbit, however, is essentially circular; hence the ‘capture theory’ fails.

Explanation 4: a great impact
This view, currently the most popular among evolutionists, holds that a hypothetical planet (called Theia) collided with the earth and the resulting debris formed the moon. This is said to explain the

differences between Earth rocks and moon rocks discussed above. The high temperatures generated by the collision would have boiled away volatile elements such as potassium and sodium, but more heat-resistant materials such as aluminium, calcium and thorium would have remained and condensed to form the
differences between Earth rocks and moon rocks discussed above. The high temperatures generated by the collision would have boiled away volatile elements such as potassium and sodium, but more heat-resistant materials such as aluminium, calcium and thorium would have remained and condensed to form the moon’s crust.
--Here, however, it is the similarities between rocks that cannot be explained. With the impact theory, part of the moon would have formed from the earth and part from the impacting planet. So the chemistry of moon rocks would be expected to be different to that of Earth rocks. While it is true that the moon is deficient in some Earth elements, those that are shared can have very similar properties.

The real explanation
Of course, the moon is no mystery to those who believe the Bible. According to the book of Genesis, this heavenly body was specially created by God on Day 4 of Creation Week:
--And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:16–19."
CMI