different theories were suggested for how moon formed in the passage while in lecture it is explained that why these theories are not adequate.

different theories were suggested for how moon formed in the passage while in lecture it is explained that why these theories are not adequate. The speaker contradicts the author with regards to lunar formation theories by giving specific reasons and examples. Firstly, the speaker points out that as per author, moon was formed by fission. In early age of earth moon might be rapidly spinning. A piece of earth form pacific ocean would have sperated forming moon. The speaker states that this is missconception. In reality, it was not possible. Such fisson could shatter earth. Furthermore, he gave evidence of Apollo mission. composition of rocks collected by them were completly different that earth rock. Secondly, he opposes the co-acceration theory. earth and moon are sisters formed during Nebula interstelar event. he clarifies in practice if these two have formed during this event, it would have same core composition. earth have 50%n iron whereas moon have 25% iron as their core material. Additionally he said that gravitional force will have fused them together by using dust and gas. Thirdly, the speaker denies the validity of the point that avered in the passage. Giant impact theory suggest that some mars sized planed striked earth 4. 5 billion years ago. it created many pieces, later they fused to form moon. it is quiet contray. speaker contradicts this theory by saying that. if thi had happened in past moon will not be same as today. it must be like different pieces. moon has its own biochemical process. it is harder than earth. speaker sugessts that much reserch needed because none of these theory is convencing. Hence after this holistic analysis speaker luucidly substantiates his points of view with cogency.