New Moon Formation Model

msheppard writes "This ariticle at Scientific American describes a new computer model describing the formation of the moon. "It is also strikingly similar to the first proposed impact theory 25 years ago, before computer simulations were available.""

Comments

Nothing to see here, move along . . .

[Ezubaric]

I'm no astrophysics guru, but this simulation seems to merely confirm the possible a theory rather than put forward a valid creation model as a contender for cannon. Wouldn't the same sort of thing have to be done for every other possible creation scenario before we could get anything approaching conclusive confirmation?

Showing that something works is inconclusive . . . showing that everything else doesn't work is better.

Example: Two is the only even prime number. Proof: Two can be divided by one and two. Viola!