Ken Ham: How the Moon Was Formed

It’s amazing what you can learn at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. That’s where we found this headline: Yet Another New Moon Formation Theory, written by ol’ Hambo himself. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

It seems that every other month there’s another article about a new moon-formation hypothesis. This month it’s that “the moon may have formed in a vaporised, doughnut-shaped Earth.” This new model suggests that 4.5 billion years ago something collided with earth, causing it to mushroom out into a “seething, spinning cloud of vaporised rock that resembled a squished jelly doughnut.” Then, within earth’s “puffy edges,” our moon formed.

Hambo links to this week-old article in New Scientist: The moon may have formed in a vaporised, doughnut-shaped Earth, from which he got his information. There’s also an article about it from a week ago at PhysOrg: Making the moon: Study details new story for how the moon formed. Both are about this paper, published in Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets: The origin of the Moon within a terrestrial synestia. Without a subscription, all you can read is the abstract, which says:

The giant impact hypothesis remains the leading theory for lunar origin. However, current models struggle to explain the Moon’s composition and isotopic similarity with Earth. Here we present a new lunar origin model. … Our model shifts the paradigm for lunar origin from specifying a certain impact scenario to achieving a Moon-forming synestia. Giant impacts that produce potential Moon-forming synestias were common at the end of terrestrial planet formation.

Okay, back to Hambo. He tells us:

This new model comes from computer simulations of the supposed [Hee hee!] early earth. These simulations showed a post-collision, shape-shifting early earth, which was a “previously unrecognised planetary structure.” The researcher said, “We bashed our head against the wall for like two years” before they “pieced together what actually was happening” (spoiler alert: that’s not what happened).

Thanks for the spoiler, Hambo!

As for that “bashed our head against the wall” quote, it appears in the New Scientist article, but it’s it’s unlikely to have been in the published paper, so it probably comes from some interview. Hambo continues:

They decided that what must have happened is that chunks of debris slammed together and formed a proto-moon and heavy “silica rain” helped the moon grow. Eventually the doughnut earth shrank and — pop! — there was our moon!

As you may have guessed, ol’ Hambo disagrees. Let’s read on:

Evolutionary scientists keep coming up with moon-formation ideas, and they will continue to do so, because they have the wrong starting point. The right starting point is God’s Word which tells us

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. (Genesis 1:16)

Yes — you gotta have the right starting point! He concludes with this:

We don’t need to come up with crazy moon-formation ideas or bang our heads against the wall, because we already know how the moon was formed: God made it on the fourth day of the Creation Week!

So there you are. Hambo doesn’t need any “crazy moon-formation ideas.” He’s got the bible.

Copyright © 2018. 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

23 responses to “Ken Ham: How the Moon Was Formed

  1. Hamster is so clueless that he thinks evolution is about the origin of the Moon.

  2. [*Voice from above*] Well said!

  3. My blank post above is a failed attempt to link to an image.

    If this fails, I will give up and seat myself on the Naughty Chair for the balance of the day…

  4. Michael Fugate

    And the AiG moon formation hypothesis is:
    14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

    15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

    16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

    17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

    18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

    19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

    Which generates many more questions than it answers….

  5. How can the moon “rule the night” when it spends half its time out during the day?

  6. Scientists debating hypotheses isn’t a problem with science, that IS science. When a model doesn’t reflect what the data is showing a revised model is proposed.
    Imagine if we did like Hambo and were satisfied that the Moon was a “light in the sky”. Why would anyone think you could explore a light? When our descendants are out amongst the stars, they’ll be laughing at how quaint it was that once people believed stars were little decorations of the firmament that could fall to earth.

  7. As pointed out, holy Hambo seems to conflate astronomy with evolution, and the moon only rules the night when full. For that matter, most stars and the planets have have cycles in which they alternate as present in the night sky or the day sky. And Hambo certainly exaggerates when he says there a new hypothesis (not theory) about the moon’s origin every other month. He and Rives should get together sometime.

  8. Ham has form in railing against scientists for revising their models (or having ‘unbiblical’ models in the first place):
    As well as complaining about what is reported here: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2162611-the-moon-may-have-formed-in-a-vaporised-doughnut-shaped-earth/
    Ham fulminates: “It seems that every other month there’s another article about a new moon-formation hypothesis. This month it’s that “the moon may have formed in a vaporised, doughnut-shaped Earth.” This new model suggests that 4.5 billion years ago something collided with earth, causing it to mushroom out into a “seething, spinning cloud of vaporised rock that resembled a squished jelly doughnut.” Then, within earth’s “puffy edges,” our moon formed.”
    “Evolutionary scientists keep coming up with moon-formation ideas, and they will continue to do so, because they have the wrong starting point. The right starting point is God’s Word which tells us: 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. (Genesis 1:16). We don’t need to come up with crazy moon-formation ideas or bang our heads against the wall, because we already know how the moon was formed: God made it on the fourth day of the Creation Week!”

    Also:
    https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/
    “So they can’t explain the origin of the moon so they’ve come up with another far-fetched story. And they will keep coming up with far-fetched stories until they accept the true account of the moon’s origin in Genesis 1.”

    However, if he thought it ‘confirmed’ Genesis he would not call it ‘far-fetched’.

  9. About everyone above sadly misunderstands Ol’Hambo, the holiest man on Earth who understands science and religion better than anyone else. Everything that even vaguely applies that the entire shenanigan is older than 6 millennia by definition belongs to filthy materialist, athiest, communist, fasciest evilutionism. So of course evilutionism is about the formation of the Moon. If you even slightly disagree you’re a heretic, a heathen or worse, an unbeliever. You know where you’ll find yourself in the end.

  10. It’s all about certainty. Whereas ‘secular’ scientists scratch their heads or bash their heads against the wall, Ham’s followers have the confidence of absolute certainty.
    Secondly, Ham exploits the vivid description of “squished jelly doughnut” to make the ‘secular’ theory sound really silly. We can assume that the computer simulations going into this theory are far beyond what creationists can comprehend, but they don’t need to know that. “Squished jelly doughnut” says it all.

  11. jimroberts

    “he made the stars also”
    It takes him six days to get the Earth set up to his satisfaction, but he sets up the rest of the universe in a couple of spare minutes on day four.

  12. Silly, everyone knows this is how the moon was formed.
    In a large pot, heat the milk to 85°F, stirring frequently.
    As the milk is heating, add the calcium chloride.
    When the milk gets to 85°F, add culture, stir in with an up-and-down motion, cover, and ferment for 1 hour.
    Stir to homogenize the milk, and slowly fold in the diluted rennet and green dye.
    There’s a few more steps, but that’s the basics.

  13. Back in 1970 Science published an article which showed that propagation of sound waves through lunar rocks more closely resembled that of cheese than terrestrial rocks.

    Schreiber, E., and Anderson, O. L., 1970, Properties and Composition of Lunar Materials: Earth Analogies: Science, v. 168 (26 June), p. 1579-1580.

  14. @Paul S
    You have produced a design for a Moon.
    It may not be a perfect design, but it is an Intelligent Design.
    Therefore, according to the rhetoric of ID, you are a maker of the Moon.

  15. Ken Ham saith:

    We don’t need to come up with crazy moon-formation ideas or bang our heads against the wall, because we already know how the moon was formed: God made it on the fourth day of the Creation Week!

    Genesis tells us God made the moon and when, but not how. That ought to be obvious even to someone who believes it happened in a single day 6,000 years ago. But evidently Ham can’t read, or doesn’t understand what he reads, even in the Bible.

  16. Ham totally misses the whole point of science. The Bible says God made the moon. Fine. The role of science is to explain how it was formed, regardless of who, if anyone, formed it.

    Of course, saying Goddidit doesn’t answer the question of “How?”. And another “of course” — Ham doesn’t care.

  17. @Eric Lipps: As they say, great minds think alike. We were writing at the same time; you’re just a faster typist.

  18. Oh, shoot — did it again — put in a “close italics” code instead of “close bold”.

    [*Voice from above*] Your blunder cried out to me in the firmament, and so I fixed it.

  19. @Hans complains about Ol’Hambo’s mockery: “Ham exploits the vivid description of “squished jelly doughnut” to make the ‘secular’ theory sound really silly.”
    Sure, but it also confirms that creationists (including Ol’Hambo) are incapable of learning. Ask Fred Hoyle and Erwin Schrödinger what happened with the Big Bang and a famous imaginary cat when they tried this trick.

    @EricL thinks he’s smart: “Genesis tells us God made the moon and when, but not how.
    1. Heathen, the Bible tells the how. “And God said …”. Ol’Hambo’s god spoke the entire shenanigan into existence. He used the Power of the Word. You use the wrong lens, pal. Accept the Biblical lens and everything becomes as clear as crystal.
    2. IDiots (and apologists in general) can’t use the Bible as evidence. The answer is a bit different. “We don’t need to worry how God interacts with our natural reality.” A decree issued by an apologist called Verbose Stoic. Because arguments. We can use it here too. Or not. Because arguments.

    @RSG: That’s your punishment for doubting the word of the holiest man on Earth.

  20. The bible also insists that the moon makes its own light. Yet another “alternative fact” that science does not seem to have caught up with.

  21. mnb0:
    “@RSG: That’s your punishment for doubting the word of the holiest man on Earth.”

    Ah, yes — but the almighty [*Voice from above*] is apparently on my side, and rescued my poor soul.

  22. Ken Ham has been lying again (he either know he is wrong or he couldn’t give a monkeys about the actual facts because he has brainwashed himself that he is ‘correct’):
    http://www.forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2967&p=51983#p51983