AIG and the Origin of the Moon

A couple of weeks ago we wrote about a new discovery supporting the theory that the Moon was created when the Earth collided with a now-vanished Mars-sized planet named Theia — see Two Noteworthy Astronomical Discoveries. At the end of that post we advised you to “be prepared for some squawking from the creationists.”

Our prophesy has come to pass. At the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), described in the Cast of Characters section of our Intro page, AIG is whining about the Giant Impact Theory.

You can find this in AIG’s News to Note, November 3, 2012 — “A weekly feature examining news from the biblical viewpoint.” It’s the third item at their news summary, titled “Giant impact hypothesis” makes a comeback. (Yes, we noticed that they downgraded it to hypothesis status.) Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us and their scripture references omitted:

Shining down night after night, defying a series of evolutionary hypotheses to explain its origin, is the moon. Evolutionary astronomers have suggested many possibilities over the years, but each has significant problems, such as geochemical discrepancies or failure to measure up in computer simulations. Of course, in a determined effort to come up with a naturalistic explanation for the satellite that reflects sunlight into our night sky, the starting conditions in simulations (which conveniently cannot be verified) can be adjusted until a mathematical model finally works.

Foolish scientists — they’re all headed for the Lake of Fire! AIG then spends a few paragraphs discussing the Impact Theory and the latest evidence which supports it, after which they say:

In the course of investigating a crime, forensic scientists may discover evidence consistent with many possible scenarios, but they ultimately seek for witnesses to validate what really happened. Building a convincing story without corroborating witnesses is a good way to convict the innocent.

Huh? Let’s read on:

Analogously, finding an isotopic ratio that fits a desired story for the moon’s origins does not make that story true. Even beyond the other problems with the giant impact hypothesis, the greatest problem remains: its lack of a corroborating witness. In fact, the only eyewitness account attesting to the origin of the moon is provided by God in [Genesis reference].

Lordy, lordy. Let’s be sure we understand this. Suppose ol’ Hambo’s creation museum were broken into and some of his creationist exhibits were stolen. And then suppose that the cops find your Curmudgeon’s fingerprints at the scene of the crime, and a search of our humble abode reveals their missing Adam & Eve statues and dinosaur saddles in our bedroom, and they examine our computer to find that we made loads of visits to several “How to Break into a Museum” websites. But even with all that evidence, they still don’t know who might have committed the crime because they have no eyewitness!

Before we continue with AIG’s article, we want to be sure you don’t think we’ve gone soft in the head. Please be assured that in the next excerpt, the translation of their Latin expression was supplied by AIG for their readers. We know you don’t need it. Okay, let’s get to it:

The biblical idea, that God created the moon ex nihilo (from nothing) about 6,000 years ago along with the rest of our solar system and the stars, does not seek to “explain” why the moon has a different proportion of zinc isotopes, but it does not have to.

Right. Creation science doesn’t have to explain anything. Explanations are for unbelievers! Here’s the last of it:

Any models describing the history of the solar system must be consistent with this historical fact revealed in the Bible to have the possibility of being valid. Evolutionary astronomers, by ignoring the biblical account, ignore their one completely reliable Eyewitness.

So there you are. You may think you’re really smart, but you don’t know nuthin’ about the Moon!

Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

15 responses to “AIG and the Origin of the Moon

  1. Our Curmudgeon invites us to imagine

    ol’ Hambo’s creation museum were broken into and some of his creationist exhibits were stolen. And then suppose that the cops find your Curmudgeon’s fingerprints at the scene of the crime, and a search of our humble abode reveals their missing Adam & Eve statues and dinosaur saddles in our bedroom.

    Are you sure this is only an illustrative supposition and not an actual confession?

    Olivia assures me that, on the one brief occasion she caught a glimpse of your bedroom, it contained “horrors beyond all imagining” and sent her running in abject terror.

  2. Megalonyx says: “Olivia assures me that, on the one brief occasion she caught a glimpse of your bedroom”

    One brief occasion — is that what she told you?

  3. There is nothing constructive to say. With a modern education and the proof of science and technology all around them, a large proportion of the population chooses to think at a third grade level. That has been encouraged by a news media that no longer recognizes the difference between experts and opinionated blowhards and refuses to call sophomoric twaddle and lies what they are. The conditions has been exacerbated by a political party that cynically turned against science to cater to evangelicals and energy companies, to the detriment of the entire planet.
    We are in for an epic decline, including famine and plagues, if the voting public doesn’t pull its collective head out of its a**. That will give people a chance to test the power of prayer.

  4. Deutoronomy 17, 3: “And, [if they] hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded (…) Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.”

    The Bible clearly says that God doesn’t command the moon. It was obviously created and seeded with false evidence by Satan/Xenu/Cthulhu/The Flying Spaghetti Monster to decieve us. Someone stone these astronomers pronto before they decieve us with their “reasoning” and “evidence”.

  5. Evolutionary astronomers, by ignoring the biblical account, ignore their one completely reliable Eyewitness.

    If there is a witness to the formation of the moon, Mr. Ham, please call him to the stand so that he can be questioned. All you have presented so far is hearsay – your interpretation of a very brief written account by persons unknown as to what the alleged witness might have told them at some unknown time in the past. It is inadmissible on it’s face.

    The unverifiable account you attempt to present is further weakened by the fact that it is itself based on surviving handwritten copies made by unknown scribes from earlier copies by other unknown scribes over an unknown number of generations dating back to the long lost original accounts, which are commonly understood to be themselves based on various oral traditions passed down through another unknown number of earlier generations.

    Come back when you have some admissible evidence, Mr. Ham. Next case.

  6. Is it just me or does he sound more tired than usual? I wonder how much longer he can keep up this one man war against reality.

  7. The whole truth

    “which conveniently cannot be verified”

    “the greatest problem remains: its lack of a corroborating witness”

    Hey hambo, ALL of your claims conveniently cannot be verified and you cannot produce ANY witnesses to corroborate any of your claims including, as Ed pointed out, the alleged creation of the moon by your chosen alleged god. The fairy tales in the bible are not a witness to anything except that they are fairy tales.

    And hey hambo, if your so-called god is as real and as powerful as you and your ilk claim it is, and if you’re as intimately connected to it as you claim to be, then why do you have to constantly come up with attacks on science and stupid, desperately reaching arguments in your lame attempts to support its alleged existence and power? Why don’t you instead have your so-called god demonstrate its existence and power by creating another Earth moon, or by parting a sea, or by striking me with a lightning bolt, or by making brown cows produce chocolate milk?

    Your so-called god is a joke, a fairy tale, a delusion, and is simply a means for despicable charlatans like you to manipulate and control people and con them out of their money. Your so-called god is not only NOT powerful, it doesn’t even amount to a 99 pound weakling, because it doesn’t exist, while 99 pound weaklings do exist. Even a 99 pound weakling has 99 pounds of real existence that can be “verified”, while your so-called god has nothing to support it but impossible, ridiculous, made up stories and bald assertions that do NOT ‘verify’ its existence or power.

  8. Ceteris Paribus

    Witnesses are indispensable when it comes to the literal truth of the bible. According to AIG the Pentatuch, which are the first five books of the Old Testament, were all written by none other than Moses. And of course Moses would tell no lies. In fact in Deuteronomy, another book of the Pentatuch, Moses even wrote about the events following his own death.

  9. Charles Deetz ;)

    Problem with witnesses is that their story doesn’t always fit …

    Vinny Gambini: How could it take you five minutes to cook your grits when it takes the entire grit-eating world 20 minutes?
    Mr. Tipton: Um… I’m a fast cook, I guess.
    Vinny: [across beside the jury] What? I’m sorry I was over there. Did you just say you were a fast cook? Are we to believe that boiling water soaks into a grit faster in your kitchen than any place on the face of the earth?
    Mr. Tipton: I don’t know.
    Vinny: Perhaps the laws of physics cease to exist on your stove. Were these magic grits? Did you buy them from the same guy who sold Jack his beanstalk beans?

  10. @Ceteris Paribus – There is an ancient tradition that the last verses of Deuteronomy, which describe the death, burial, and later reputation of Moses, were written by Joshua.
    And it is an ancient tradition that the entire Pentateuch was written by Moses. There is nothing in the Bible which says that, which doesn’t prevent Bible-only literalist interpreters from claiming that it does.
    Bible-only, literal and inerrant, is quite flexible when defending what one wants to believe.

  11. retiredsciguy

    Ed — Well said.

  12. “Shining down night after night”
    Except when it’s visible during the day!

  13. Ceteris Paribus

    @TomS: Well, no one can accuse the AIG of being inconsistent. All the heavy work to find the right answers will be found right there in the Book of Genesis authored by Moses. Those other books and writers are just helpers sometimes.

    Search AIG for Moses as the author of the Pentatuch, and Moses is unambiguously proven to be the author of Deuteronomy. Lots of biblical citations prove it was Moses, not even possibly Joshua

    Search AIG for Joshua, and we find Joshua is unambiguously the author of the true facts surrounding the day the sun stood still while his buddies exterminated an entire rival tribe. AIG points out that Joshua is telling the truth since Joshua himself cites as his proof text what Jasher said in the Book of Jasher.

    Search AIG for the Book of Jasher, and we find that it was not included in the canon of 66 orthodox books. And the AIG reasons that the mere fact that the Book of Jasher was not included is positive proof that the book was not divinely inspired, and therefore cannot be believed.

  14. retiredsciguy

    Stig’s Mate “Shining down night after night”
    Except when it’s visible during the day!

    Any “evolutionary astronomer” could have told him that!

  15. Building a convincing story without corroborating witnesses is a good way to convict the innocent.

    I suppose someone needs to say that is the complete opposite of reality. In fact, in almost every case where a convicted person is later shown to be innocent, the main (often the only) evidence against them is eyewitness testimony. And the evidence that eventually frees the person is almost always scientific evidence such as DNA tests. We lawyers have known this for a long time.