I found one creationist website attributing the origin of the asteroids to Earth itself, specifically to what is described as a very explosive opening of the "fountains of the deep" as mentioned in the Bible, shooting rock into space. Here's a discussion of that theory
I know a little bit about that theory. It can't, in an of itself, explain the craters. One of the big issues is that the thermodynamics involved would superheat the water so that it would be vapor in that circumstance. But the other issue has to do with the orbital nature of the moon.
As most are aware, the moon's circular rotation matches its orbit of the Earth. Which means that we only ever have one face of the moon pointing towards the Earth. If the fountains of the deep were responsible for the cratering, they could not have produced craters on the dark side of the moon. It would be akin to firing a shotgun at a stationary, solid target, like a bowling ball. One side of the ball would be peppered with shotgun pellets while the back side was unscathed. But what we seen with the moon is that the cratering covers the entire surface of the moon. Meaning that impact strikes had to occur on the side pointing away from Earth. The fountains of the deep would not have been able to reach that side.
Before the fountains were opened, the moon's circular rotation did not match its orbit of the Earth. The bombardment of "asteroids" from the fountains opening up and blasting rocks to the moon slowed down the moon's rotational speed to the point where it matched up with its orbital speed.
Of course! How did I miss that.
And this was also around the time that the moon transformed from actual cheese into solid rock, yes?
I have never actually quite understood that notion myself. The Bible is rife with notions of miracles and miraculous occurrences. I find it strange that many YECs try to pigeon-hole science into their belief system. It's almost as if they are trying to give 'legitimacy' to their worldview by leveraging the current knowledge of science and its proven track record. Yet at the same time, belittling science as being inaccurate or arrogant. Very strange disconnect.
If God can perform miracles, than just say so. You can say anything in that case. The Flood could have happened, two of every animal could have repopulated the Earth, Noah could have lived 900 years, etc. if you invoke miracles. The notion is part in parcel with the belief system, so I fail to see why so many YECs are hesitant in utilizing it.
I just find it harder and harder to believe that these people are sincere. Like, they've got to be kidding us, right?
Some aren't sincere. Some are just scam artists masquerading as honest, humble, faith-driven religious folk. Prime example are a lot of politicians that placate to this nonsense or folks like Kent Hovind, who try to leverage nonsense and gullibility of the masses to bank some money at their expense.
If God used magic to make the flood happen and then disguised the earth to look like the flood never happened, then he would not be being a very nice and honest god. More of a prankster, in fact. Like Loki.
They can't be having that...
They could always just argue that it is a 'test of faith'. God deliberately seeded the Earth with false information that counters the Bible as a means to test the faith of the virtuous. Kind of a variant of last Thursday-ism.
The Bible is concerned about WHO created the universe and WHY, not WHEN or HOW.
Are you familiar with the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy?
In a nutshell, energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed. Merely transformed from type to another.
What people in religious circles have difficulty grasping is that while the universe as we know it had a point of origin, the energy that comprises space and time had no point of creation by virtue of the Law of Conservation of Energy. Energy, by its inherent properties cannot be created.
If one wants to ascribe a divine source for creation of the universe, they have to concede that while god could have potentially set certain things in motion, he actually could have not 'created' anything. At least, not in the sense of creation from scratch, so to speak.
We seem to agree that our universe had a beginning. But I don't follow where you are going from here. Are you suggesting that the mass-energy that makes up our universe did NOT have a beginning, that it was eternal? If so, how do you reconcile this with our universe having a beginning? Or are you using conservation of mass-energy to reject the Big Bang?
The universe as we know it had a beginning. But what I am stipulating is that it was not a 'poof' into existence scenario. It was more akin to a state change from one form to another.
The fallacy most are making when they examine the Big Bang is that they make an assumption that it was a something from nothing scenario. That is false. The Big Bang was actually an expansion event where space-time formed from the energy resident in the singularity. A good analogy is to consider states of matter: gases, liquids and solids. An ice cube 'came into existence' as an ice cube. But it originally began as liquid water. It changed states.
Note that this is in no way a 'rejection' of the Big Bang. The Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy follows along perfectly with the notion of the Big Bang. However, the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy is a refutation of the creation supposition, since it automatically refutes the notion of the universe having simply been created from scratch.
There are of course other avenues the creation argument can go. That god used part of his own 'energy' to form the universe. However, this does not seem to conform to scripture.