too many coincidences to explain our moon?

[ccgr]

http://www.reasons.org/articles/increas ... l-disquiet" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Pretty good read, me thinks.

[ArchAngel]

I started reading this thinking it was from reason.org but as I started going through it, things stopped adding up. I looked back up and lo and behold, it was reasons.org, for Reasons to Believe. It then made sense.

I fail to see the issue with the "probability" of a moon, nor am I convinced of it's necessity for life. In a galaxy of billion stars, of the billion galaxies in the observable universe, the fact that planet bodies have collisions that formed an orbiting body during the turbulent accretion stage in the early solar system history doesn't seem so implausible.

I'm not saying we have the theory of our moon's origins locked down, but any gaps in our knowledge isn't suddenly proof of God. Ignorance is not a proof of anything, as well as something creationists consistently fail to accomplish: there hasn't been any substantiation on the assertion that an intelligent, supernatural being is needed or even exists.