[_ Old Earth _] Was the moon once part of the earth which broke off

[WIP]

It is puzzling to me that based on our understanding of how the planets might have formed they should all be quite similar material since they would have all formed out of the same nebula as our earth, but they are not.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

God made the sun and the moon and the stars:
Genesis 1:16
God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

The moon did not break off and fly into space, only far enough to be held by the gravity of the earth and not fall back to earth. Or orbiting at exactly the right speed to be there year after year. Or to be spinning in a synchronized fashion such that we only see one side.

Do you realize what you are saying. Chunks of the earth, somehow, got separated from the earths crust. Now, somehow they have to leave the earths gravity. Take a look at the force needed to lift a Saturn V rocket out of earth's gravitational pull. How much would the clump of rocks, the size of the moon need? Now these rocks that have somehow gained enough force to leave the earths gravitational pull, somehow slow down and stop just far enough to perfectly orbit the earth. Then, they morph into the perfectly round object we see today and spin just fast enough that one side always faces the earth. Top it all off with the fact that without it, much of the life on this earth would not survive...

Maybe God scooped up some of the earths crust from the gulf of Mexico, patted it into a mud ball and spun it in space...... But that's not what it says. It says He made two great lights.

Also, the moon is far lighter than it should be. Many believe that it is either hollow or porous and not solid. When stages of old rockets impacted the surface of the moon, it rang like a bell for 1 hour the first time and 3 hours the second.

If the moon was heavier, like it would be if it was solid, it would effect the earth in a much greater fashion, it would then have to be further away or the tides would be huge and it would then be a different size when viewed from the earth, than the sun...

Ever wonder how two celestial bodies, the two biggest, by far, in our sky, are millions of miles from us and millions of miles from each other, yet, they are EXACTLY the same size to us on earth.... Can you not see God's signature there.

How does that song go? How great tho art.......
Oh Lord, my God
When I in awesome wonder
Consider all the works
Thy hands have made

I see the stars
I hear the rolling thunder
Thy power throughout
The universe displayed



Moon Echoes: On November 20, 1969, the Apollo 12 crew jettisoned the lunar module ascent stage causing it to crash onto the moon. The LM's impact (about 40 miles from the Apollo 12 landing site) created an artificial moonquake with startling characteristics - the moon reverberated like a bell for more than an hour.
This phenomenon was repeated with Apollo 13 (intentionally commanding the third stage to impact the moon), with even more startling results.
Seismic instruments recorded that the reverberations lasted for three hours and twenty minutes and traveled to a depth of twenty-five miles, leading to the conclusion that the moon has an unusually light - or even no - core.

 

[brother Paul]

It is puzzling to me that based on our understanding of how the planets might have formed they should all be quite similar material since they would have all formed out of the same nebula as our earth, but they are not.

And most moons are quite unique and do not reflect the respective make up of their planets...some are mostly gas others ice others frozen acids and so on....

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
And the close match to the composition of crust and mantle indicates a collision followed by the formation of the moon from the debris.

Not really...close match of composition does not indicate a it resulted from a collision at all

It's very clear:
The elemental compositions you listed are very much alike. The crust of the Earth is mostly oxygen and silicon. So is the moon, according to your data. Let's try an apples to apples comparison:

Earth's mantle: 44% oxygen Moon: 43% oxygen
Earth's mantle: 21% silicon Moon: 20% silcon
Earth's mantle: 22% magnesium Moon: 19% magnesium
Earth's mantle: 6% iron Moon: 10% iron

This is one of the reasons why the collision theory is gaining adherents. The elemental composition of each is so similar. Your source tried to pull a fast one on you by doing elements on one of them, and mineral compounds on the other. They made it look like it was very different. But as you see, it's not. Which is another reason the collision theory has convinced most planetary astronomers.

 

[Barbarian]

God made the sun and the moon and the stars:
Genesis 1:16
God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

Yep. But He didn't say how. We're learning more about that.

The moon did not break off and fly into space, only far enough to be held by the gravity of the earth and not fall back to earth.

Evidence says it did. Most of it likely fell back to Earth. Perhaps some of it reached escape velocity and left the Earth's gravitational pull entirely. And some happened to be moving at the right velocity to orbit.

Or to be spinning in a synchronized fashion such that we only see one side.

Gravitational locking isn't unusual:
Also known as captured rotation, the tying of the orbital period of a planet or moon to its axial period through a tidal effect caused by the gravitational pull of the primary. The gravitational lock experienced by the Moon, for example, explains why it always keeps the same face directed toward the Earth. Likewise, the five inner satellites of Jupiter complete one orbit for every axial rotation. Mercury is locked in a 3:2 resonance with the Sun so that it completes 3 orbits of the Sun (each lasting 88 days) in the time it takes to spin twice on its axis
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/G/gravlock.html

Do you realize what you are saying.

Yep.

Chunks of the earth, somehow, got separated from the earths crust. Now, somehow they have to leave the earths gravity. Take a look at the force needed to lift a Saturn V rocket out of earth's gravitational pull. How much would the clump of rocks, the size of the moon need?

Mars-size object would do nicely. In the early solar system, a lot of that would have gone on. Just as only part of the Earth that was knocked into space could form a stable orbit, most of the material orbiting the Sun would fall into it, but would have numerous collisions in the meantime.

Now these rocks that have somehow gained enough force to leave the earths gravitational pull, somehow slow down and stop just far enough to perfectly orbit the earth.

That happens in any such collision. Some debris is too slow and falls back to the planet. Some is too fast and leaves the system. Some happens to fit the window for that system, and orbits. Always that way, if the collision is hard enough.

Then, they morph into the perfectly round object we see today

That's just a function of how much mass it has. If it's massive enough, it will always form a sphere.

and spin just fast enough that one side always faces the earth.

See above. Physics pretty much guarantees that.

Top it all off with the fact that without it, much of the life on this earth would not survive...

None of it would. This would have happened long before the Earth produced living things.

Also, the moon is far lighter than it should be.

Pretty much the right density for a body made of crust and mantle.

Moon's density is about 3.34 gm/cc.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html

Earth's crust and mantle?
Continental Crust: 2.7 to 3.0
Oceanic Crust: 3.0 to 3.3
Mantle (silicates): 3.3 to 5.7
http://jersey.uoregon.edu/~mstrick/AskGeoMan/geoQuerry57.html

Many believe that it is either hollow or porous and not solid.

See above. Not very likely. That kind of density is inconsistent with a hollow sphere.

If the moon was heavier, like it would be if it was solid, it would effect the earth in a much greater fashion

Nope. It acts precisely the way it should. In fact, we know the mass of the moon, from it's gravitational effect on Earth and spacecraft. And because we know how big it is, we can then compute the density.

Ever wonder how two celestial bodies, the two biggest, by far, in our sky, are millions of miles from us and millions of miles from each other, yet, they are EXACTLY the same size to us on earth....

Nope. Close, but not exactly. Hence, we have annular eclipses, when the Moon is a apogee, and can't cover all of the Sun.

Can you not see God's signature there.

If God was doing it, I think He could manage to be more precise. Just saying.

 

[brother Paul]

Not a very nice thing to say about NASA...

 

[Barbarian]

For precision, very few things exceed the requirements for successfully navigating a spacecraft to Pluto.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

God made the sun and the moon and the stars:
Genesis 1:16
God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

Here's the kicker to me. Ideally it would be great if scientific understanding and bible verses lined up more often, but according to Genesis the sun and moon were established on the forth day of creation. Plants were the third day. It makes it sound (at best) that life on earth started while the solar system was a nebula and not a star system. Not only the issue that the earth predates the sun.

Mind boggling to me, but I trust God.

 

[Barbarian]

Here's the kicker to me. Ideally it would be great if scientific understanding and bible verses lined up more often, but according to Genesis the sun and moon were established on the forth day of creation. Plants were the third day. It makes it sound (at best) that life on earth started while the solar system was a nebula and not a star system. Not only the issue that the earth predates the sun.

None of which makes any sense, if taken as a literal history. But if taken as Christians always have done, as a figurative explanation of the creation, it's not a problem at all.

Mark Twain once wrote about the unfortunate mindset of many Christians when he had one of his characters say that faith was believing something you knew wasn't true. Save us from that.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

None of which makes any sense, if taken as a literal history. But if taken as Christians always have done, as a figurative explanation of the creation, it's not a problem at all.

Mark Twain once wrote about the unfortunate mindset of many Christians when he had one of his characters say that faith was believing something you knew wasn't true. Save us from that.

Faith is above most else, is trust. But beyond that, if you look at the first chapter of Genesis as anything else but a record of God creating the world, then what good does it serve?

In Jesus's parables even though they might not be literal stories, there was a meaning behind each one. A teaching behind everything he said and did. In the Old Testiment dreams were predictions and revelations, even in the new Testiment Peter's dream of heaven lowering food for Peter was a lesson for him. But this chapter of God creating the world serves no purpose if it's not true. Not for teaching us how to be. Nor does it fill us with awe for God, if we don't believe it to be true.

To be an explaination, and false at that makes no sense to me. It is also referenced at least a few other times in the bible. That God rested on the seventh day is referenced for resting on the sabbath, as well as referencing that God has prepared for us a place of rest. If it was not true, wouldn't those verses that point to it have the opportunity to correct the misconception instead?

I'm sorry if I do not have an explaination that better explain the origins of the world, but I trust God still. On that note, I also understand that science needs a foundation of correct understanding to stand on and advance, and in order to gain such a foundation, it has needed to step away from certain perspectives of how the world is, or should be, and focus on what evidance can be given.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

I still trust God.

 

[Barbarian]

Faith is above most else, is trust. But beyond that, if you look at the first chapter of Genesis as anything else but a record of God creating the world, then what good does it serve?

It sets the expectations for Christ, the New Adam, Who will come and save us. The descriptionn of the days of Genesis make clear the complete control that God had over all things, even the things (like creation of life) that was done by His creation. And it then describes our fall from grace as we became beings capable of fellowship with God, but unable to be truly good as we gained an understanding of good and evil.

Genesis 3:22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil:

In Jesus's parables even though they might not be literal stories, there was a meaning behind each one. A teaching behind everything he said and did. In the Old Testiment dreams were predictions and revelations, even in the new Testiment Peter's dream of heaven lowering food for Peter was a lesson for him. But this chapter of God creating the world serves no purpose if it's not true. Not for teaching us how to be. Nor does it fill us with awe for God, if we don't believe it to be true.

It is true. It just didn't put in every detail and it used "days" as symbols, just as it uses Adam as foreshadowing of the Messiah.

 

[brother Paul]

Here's the kicker to me. Ideally it would be great if scientific understanding and bible verses lined up more often, but according to Genesis the sun and moon were established on the forth day of creation. Plants were the third day. It makes it sound (at best) that life on earth started while the solar system was a nebula and not a star system. Not only the issue that the earth predates the sun.

Mind boggling to me, but I trust God.

Genesis 2 tells us

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created (bara), in the day that the Lord God made ('asah or to fashion) the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew:

for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

As the planet already existed but life on the planet came later, also we see "process"...we see the Lord "fashioned" "every plant" and "every herb" before it grew (though one completed action, with the exception of Light, ideation precedes formation...God sees or creates and then brings into form)...we in His image might imagine the plan for a table and then we make it (give form to the ideation)....we can see this with man as well....when God creates (bara) humankind He CREATES them male and female BUT when He gives them form (the word "formed" or yatzar is to give form to) He makes the male first and the female second

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

It sets the expectations for Christ, the New Adam, Who will come and save us. The descriptionn of the days of Genesis make clear the complete control that God had over all things, even the things (like creation of life) that was done by His creation. And it then describes our fall from grace as we became beings capable of fellowship with God, but unable to be truly good as we gained an understanding of good and evil.

Genesis 3:22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil:



It is true. It just didn't put in every detail and it used "days" as symbols, just as it uses Adam as foreshadowing of the Messiah.

If it's not true to begin with, how can it be an expectation? As for the days meaning an era instead of 24 hours, that's fine. God could have done it either way. However, it still passes over the detail that "how" it was done by the order of the days. The sun according to Genisis came second to the earth. Even second to plants. As strange as it sounds, the how of it gives enough detail to counter our understanding of how the world was made.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

Genesis 2 tells us

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created (bara), in the day that the Lord God made ('asah or to fashion) the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew:

for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

As the planet already existed but life on the planet came later, also we see "process"...we see the Lord "fashioned" "every plant" and "every herb" before it grew (though one completed action, with the exception of Light, ideation precedes formation...God sees or creates and then brings into form)...we in His image might imagine the plan for a table and then we make it (give form to the ideation)....we can see this with man as well....when God creates (bara) humankind He CREATES them male and female BUT when He gives them form (the word "formed" or yatzar is to give form to) He makes the male first and the female second

I'll have to think about that Paul. Right now the difference between create and form sound like no difference. But still I'll have to think about it before I can say more.

 

[WIP]

I'll have to think about that Paul. Right now the difference between create and form sound like no difference. But still I'll have to think about it before I can say more.

Interesting thought. To me, create implies starting from nothing whereas form implies using what is already available and reshaping into something else.

 

[brother Paul]

If it's not true to begin with, how can it be an expectation? As for the days meaning an era instead of 24 hours, that's fine. God could have done it either way. However, it still ostpasses over the detail that "how" it was done by the order of the days. The sun according to Genisis came second to the earth. Even second to plants. As strange as it sounds, the how of it gives enough detail to counter our understanding of how the world was made.

In post 33 I gave an explanation of why it does not say such things...the stars and earth are fully made before the plants were made...

 

[brother Paul]

Interesting thought. To me, create implies starting from nothing whereas form implies using what is already available and reshaping into something else.

Ye and both are what the word says He did....process...God creates but then says He "makes" or "forms" which are two aspects of one phenomena...only of the pre-Sun "Light" does God say it to be and it is...notice He never says He made or formed this Light...yet of other aspects of the Creation He uses very different yet specific terms for bringing things into existence (temporally)

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

In post 33 I gave an explanation of why it does not say such things...the stars and earth are fully made before the plants were made...

And I thank you for that information to consider. But I'll still have to think on it, perhaps see if I can find the words myself and what is said about their meaning.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

Here's the kicker to me. Ideally it would be great if scientific understanding and bible verses lined up more often, but according to Genesis the sun and moon were established on the forth day of creation. Plants were the third day. It makes it sound (at best) that life on earth started while the solar system was a nebula and not a star system. Not only the issue that the earth predates the sun.

Mind boggling to me, but I trust God.

Do you think that a plant would not survive a few days of no sun. Also, it does say that He created light before anything else. I'm sure a few days would not kill the brand new plants.