You're receiving this newsletter because you signed up for it at, or when you saw me speak at your church or other event. Unsubscribe instructions are at the bottom.


Creation Astronomy News

Volume II, Number 3 (Sep 2011)


In this issue:

  • Secular Theory for Moon's Origin Receives Another Blow
  • Did the Earth used to have two Moons?
  • Global warming will trigger an alien attack!

Secular Theory for Moon's Origin Receives Another Blow

Where did the Moon come from? Was it created by God, or did it come into existence by natural processes long ago?

Among secular astronomers, the standard model is the ‘giant impact’ theory. Supposedly, a Mars-sized object crashed into the Earth about 4.5 billion years ago.

This alleged collision was catastrophic. A large amount of the Earth was blasted into space as debris.

Supposedly, some of the debris fell back to Earth. The rest of it turned into our Moon.

A key prediction of this model is that the Moon could have no water, not even deep inside. The collision would have been so powerful that practically no water could have remained in the debris – it would all be vaporized. If any water remained, it would be merely trace amounts.

Although the giant impact model has several problems, the lack of water was one prediction that seemed successful. The Apollo astronauts collected several hundred pounds of lunar soils and rocks, and brought them to Earth. The first analyses had seemed to show that the lunar samples were dry.

Turns out they’re not.

Scientists have recently re-examined some of the lunar samples, using better equipment than was available during the Apollo era. They focused especially on soils that contained volcanic lava. (This allows us to measure material from the inside of the Moon instead of just the surface.)

In my Solar System DVD, I explained how the soils were turning out to have about 10 times more water than expected. This was a brand-new discovery at the time. (It was announced right before the DVD was published).

This discovery created a serious problem for the giant impact theory.

Unsurprisingly, many secular astronomers resisted the new find. They tried to explain it away, because it didn’t fit their theory.

A few months ago, a new analysis was published.1,2 This time, researchers examined beads of volcanic glass. Unlike the lava samples (which were likely to have lost some of their original water when they were formed in eruptions), the glass beads would have locked up and preserved their primeval water.

Therefore, this new analysis would be a more accurate measurement of how much water is inside the Moon.

Turns out that the Moon doesn’t have 10 times as much water as the giant impact model could allow.

It actually has 100 times as much.

Evolutionary astronomers are now faced with a serious problem. One of their model’s major predictions has been disproved…

…and this model was the only secular explanation left for the Moon’s origin.

(There used to be other secular models, but the Apollo program’s other discoveries trashed all of them.)

So the non-Creation origins model can’t explain why the Earth has a Moon.

But wait, there’s more. According to some other researchers, the problem is even worse than it seems.

Apparently, even if the secular model could somehow produce a Moon, that wouldn’t be enough – because these researchers believe that…

The Earth used to have two Moons

This one was all over the Internet recently.

According to this idea – which some people are taking quite seriously – the Earth used to have two moons instead of one.

Hmm. Why is there only one today?

Because the second one perished by crashing into the Moon we see today.

Why are these researchers suggesting this? Because some of the mountains on the Moon’s far side are higher than the ones on the near side.

To explain this fact, the researchers made a model. After lots of tweaking, the model said that if there were once two moons of just the right size, with just the right orbits, which collided at just the right angle and velocity, then a high mountain range would have been pushed up on the Moon’s far side.

Thus, there’s “evidence” for the new model.

But is this a scientific hypothesis? No. It’s only a story.

An explanation doesn’t qualify as a hypothesis unless it makes a testable prediction. If it can’t do that, it’s only a just-so story.

And just-so stories are only limited by the inventor’s imagination – which isn’t much of a limitation.

Think about this for a moment. The two-moon story got a ton of publicity.

So why stop there?

I’d guess that a three-moon story would do even better. You’d get fame, fortune, and all that.

And then once that story had run its course, maybe go for four moons. And after that, five, or six, or even seven. Why not?

After all, you can make up an infinite number of stories that can produce a high mountain range on the Moon.

And that’s exactly my point.

In secular astronomy today, the idea of ‘evidence’ has grown extremely blurry. So many of the “discoveries” are just stories or computer simulations.

As long as the story isn’t obviously impossible, you can claim that you’ve discovered how something happened.

You can claim that you’ve discovered something about true history.

But all you’ve really done is make up a story.

And since an infinite number of stories are possible, this tells us nothing definitive about true history.

Too bad this fundamental distinction is lost on most evolutionists today.

Global Warming Will Trigger an Alien Attack!

I wish I were making this one up. But alas, I’m not.

Three scientists–one of which works for NASA–recently published a paper3 categorizing the various things that will happen when some form of ETI (extraterrestrial intelligence) finally contacts humanity.

Some of the possible encounters would have happy endings.

I especially liked the scenario where the Earth is attacked by a powerful group of aliens, which of course would be much more powerful than us (since they have space technology and we don’t).

But then, just before we get wiped out, a second group of aliens comes to our rescue, helping us to defeat the first group.

As the three scientists helpfully noted, this is a happy ending for several reasons.

Not only would we get the major moral victory of defeating a daunting rival, we’d also benefit because we could reverse-engineer the aliens’ technology.

Nevertheless, not all possible encounters have such happy endings as that one. The three scientists warned that no doubt, many ETs are very hostile to us.

Therefore, it’s in our best interest to hide from the hostile aliens until our technology is as good as theirs.

Of course, the hostile aliens will be hunting for us very diligently. (They’re hostile, after all.)

And if you were a hostile alien, looking for a less-evolved species to wipe out, how would you find your next victim?

Well, the answer is obvious. You’d look for a planet with global warming!

The scientists explained that rapid changes in a planet’s atmosphere–like greenhouse gas emissions–is an invitation to hostile ETs.

Apparently, global warming is a clear giveaway of a planet with a species that’s a good candidate for some cosmic bullying.

Why? Because rising levels of greenhouse gases show that “we have already altered our environment in ways that may viewed as unethical” by progressive aliens.

Thus, we’re liable to a ‘preemptive strike’ by environmentalist ETs.

Along with this warning about an intergalactic Greenpeace, the scientists list lots of other reasons why aliens might arrive to kill, eat, or enslave us.

They warn that it’s vital for us to “limit our growth and reduce our impact on global ecosystems,” and that it’s “particularly important for us to limit our emissions of greenhouse gases” in order to avoid this scary fate.

No, I’m not making this up. This laughable rubbish actually passes for science today.

Here’s something that’s not so laughable. Since one of the authors works for NASA, we can presume that US taxpayers paid his salary while he worked on this report.

I want my money back.

Click Here to Forward This Newsletter to a Friend



Psalm 19:1-4

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. [There is] no speech nor language, [where] their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.

Spike Psarris