You'll provide us with a link to who said that of course... Na I didn't think so.Its an argument that has been made to me on blogs when I brought up the stars that are millions of light years away. Google creationism and light trails, I'm not going to do the work for you. And by "best explanation", I didn't mean "most plausible" or "most convincing"; I meant most entertaining.
But maybe you'll explain why the moon only has deep craters on it facing earth that could only have been created by objects originating from earth.
Here's a scale picture of how far the moon is from the Earth; it points out the ridiculousness of your argument.
As you can see, there's plenty of room for extraterrestrial objects to collide with the moon.
It has been proven over and over again balistically that the craters could only have been created by objects origionating from earth. I'm not about to hash over all that with you, serves no purpose. I'm well aware that those who cry 'evolution' have a shabby explanation for everything, no matter if it contradicts other shabby explanations for everything.
Darth Vader took all the material that is missing from the evolution of the grand canyon which should be evident at it's opening to the pacific ocean, and built a death star out of it.
There are so many flaws and contradictions of evolutionary theory, they would take days to list here. And more pile up every year.
I'm fully aware however, that an evolutionist will argue until blue in the face that elephants lived in the artic, even though it's impossible for an elephant to survive for any length of time in that climate, just as it is impossible for the tropical plants found in their stomach's and even in their mouths to grow in that climate as well.
But heck, lets just say tetonic plate shifting accounts for that, even though that statement places the artic circle even closer to the pole if one is to believe tetonic plate theory.