Intelligent Design

Earth’s rocks and Moon rocks differ—possibly shedding light on Moon origin

Spread the love
This artist’s rendition shows a giant impact similar to the one that scientists think created the Earth-Moon system 4.5 billion years ago. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

That may help us understand how the Moon formed, say researchers. Yes, that seems odd, but the we know surprisingly little about how the Moon—which plays a very important role in enabling life on Earth—was formed:

One of the most important scientific outcomes of the Apollo program was giving scientists the opportunity to explain our Moon’s origins.

Geochemical analysis of the Apollo lunar samples suggested that our Moon was formed 4.5 billion years ago, when a Mars-sized body known as Theia hit Earth when our planet had almost completely formed. Computer models indicate that in this “big splat,” most of the material that ended up forming the Moon—between 70% and 90% of the satellite’s composition—came from Theia.

Although most planetary scientists think the giant impact actually happened, evidence of Theia has been hard to find. Lab measurements of the isotopic ratios of multiple elements such as oxygen have found that Earth and the Moon are virtually indistinguishable. They couldn’t find a trace of Theia’s chemical signature.

This conundrum left researchers with just two likely explanations. On the one hand, Theia might have had the same exact isotopic composition as Earth. This idea does not bode well for current theories about the formation of the solar system and is largely ruled out. On the other hand, the impact could have been so powerful that it caused a thorough mixing of Earth’s and Theia’s material or was at least able to hide its results from our current array of instruments…

Now a group of researchers has finally detected oxygen isotope differences between terrestrial and lunar rocks, something that could ease constraints when creating lunar formation models and rule out some of the most extreme scenarios. Javier Barbuzano, “Earth Rocks and Moon Rocks Are More Different Than We Thought” at Eos

We still don’t know a whole lot: Hugh Ross: The fine-tuning that enabled our life-friendly moon creates discomfort Was it yesterday that we noted particle physicist Sabine Hossenfelder’s view that fine-tuning is “a waste of time”? Not so fast. If the evidence points to fine-tuning and the only alternative is the crackpot cosmology she deplores, it’s not so much a waste of time as a philosophically unacceptable conclusion. Put another way, it comes down to fine-tuning, nonsense, or nothing.

Moon formed from smashed moonlets?

Scientists finally know how old Moon is What’s surprising, really, is how little we know about the moon in general.

And various current theories:

Another moon origin theory: Epic crash

How the Moon Formed: 5 Wild Lunar Theories (Mike Wall at, 2014)

Our moon formed in collision with embryo planet?


Origin of the moon still shrouded in mystery

2 Replies to “Earth’s rocks and Moon rocks differ—possibly shedding light on Moon origin

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    As to this quote from High Ross’s article:

    Hugh Ross: The Fine-Tuning That Enabled Our Life-Friendly Moon Creates Discomfort – March 14, 2019
    Excerpt: Tim Elliott observes that the degree and kinds of complexity and fine-tuning required by lunar origin models appear to be increasing at an exponential rate. Among lunar origin researchers, he notes, “the sequence of conditions that currently seems necessary in these revised versions of lunar formation have led to philosophical disquiet.

    LOL, “philosophical disquiet.“. Funny, I don’t have any “philosophical disquiet” whatsoever. In fact, as far as these results are concerned, I am quite pleased philosophically speaking!

    And to add even more “philosophical disquiet” to those who would prefer an ‘accidental’ origin for the earth, moon, and solar system, (instead of a purposely created earth, moon, and solar system), the fine tuning that is required to get a stable solar system is simply astonishing:

    Rare Planetary System BY HUGH ROSS – JUNE 12, 2017
    Excerpt: Thanks in large part to research on extrasolar planets, astronomers also know that every planet in the solar system fulfills a key role in making advanced life possible on Earth. Two Brazilian astronomers showed that even tiny adjustments in the orbits of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune would prove catastrophic for life in our solar system.5 Regions beyond the precise orbital positions of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune abound in destructive mean motion resonances. As it is, Uranus is close to a 7:1 resonance with Jupiter (where Jupiter would make exactly 7 orbits around the Sun for every single orbit of Uranus), a 2:1 resonance with Neptune, and a 3:1 resonance with Saturn. Meanwhile, Jupiter and Saturn are very close to 5:2 resonance. If any of the solar system gas giant planets’ orbital positions were to shift ever so slightly, that shift would destabilize the orbit of one or more of the eight planets in the solar system with catastrophic consequences for a long history of life on Earth.
    Three Canadian astronomers further demonstrated that the orbital positions of Venus, Earth, and Mars must be fine-tuned so as to break up mean motion resonances that could be damaging for life on Earth. They showed that even the orbital features of the Earth-Moon system must be fine-tuned for this purpose.6 The Earth-Moon system suppresses a resonance in Venus’ orbit that is generated from the orbital patterns of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. Unless the Earth-Moon system is configured the way it is, both Venus’ and Mercury’s orbits would destabilize and generate destructive chaos throughout the inner solar system.
    Every planet in our solar system and Earth’s Moon contribute to making advanced life possible on Earth. The solar system’s array of eight planets must be exactly the way it is. Have you thanked God today for Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune?

    To give us a glimpse at just how delicately balanced this all is, “As an example, shifting your pencil from one side of your desk to the other today could change the gravitational forces on Jupiter enough to shift its position from one side of the Sun to the other a billion years from now.”,,,

    Is the Solar System Stable? By Scott Tremaine – 2011
    Excerpt: So what are the results? Most of the calculations agree that eight billion years from now, just before the Sun swallows the inner planets and incinerates the outer ones, all of the planets will still be in orbits very similar to their present ones. In this limited sense, the solar system is stable. However, a closer look at the orbit histories reveals that the story is more nuanced. After a few tens of millions of years, calculations using slightly different parameters (e.g., different planetary masses or initial positions within the small ranges allowed by current observations) or different numerical algorithms begin to diverge at an alarming rate. More precisely, the growth of small differences changes from linear to exponential:,,,
    As an example, shifting your pencil from one side of your desk to the other today could change the gravitational forces on Jupiter enough to shift its position from one side of the Sun to the other a billion years from now. The unpredictability of the solar system over very long times is of course ironic since this was the prototypical system that inspired Laplacian determinism.
    Fortunately, most of this unpredictability is in the orbital phases of the planets, not the shapes and sizes of their orbits, so the chaotic nature of the solar system does not normally lead to collisions between planets. However, the presence of chaos implies that we can only study the long-term fate of the solar system in a statistical sense, by launching in our computers an armada of solar systems with slightly different parameters at the present time—typically, each planet is shifted by a random amount of about a millimeter—and following their evolution. When this is done, it turns out that in about 1 percent of these systems, Mercury’s orbit becomes sufficiently eccentric so that it collides with Venus before the death of the Sun. Thus, the answer to the question of the stability of the solar system—more precisely, will all the planets survive until the death of the Sun—is neither “yes” nor “no” but “yes, with 99 percent probability.”

    And if that was not ‘philosophically disquieting’ enough for those who would prefer an accidental origin for the earth, moon, and solar system, there are now also found to be anomalies in the Cosmic Background radiation that “strangely’ line up with the earth and solar system:

    Cosmic Microwave Background Proves Intelligent Design (disproves Copernican principle) (clip of “The Principle”) – video

    A few more detailed notes

    In short, the “tiny temperature variations” in the CMBR, (and even the largest scale structures in the universe itself), reveal teleology, (i.e. a goal directed purpose, a plan, a reason), that specifically included the earth and solar system from the start of the universe. ,,, The earth and solar system, from what our best science can now tell us, is not some random cosmic fluke as atheists had presupposed.

    Job 38:4-5
    “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
    Tell me, if you understand.
    Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
    Who stretched a measuring line across it?

    Genesis 1:1-3
    In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

    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.

  2. 2
    Pearlman says:

    Per the YeC Moshe Emes series volume II SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis and model’s ‘Draw Play’ lunar formation hypothesis:
    Nice, the difference can be accounted for by, and attest to, the moon was separated from us by/during day 3, prior to the modern earth.. oxygen saturation.. that came after the vegetation was created on day 3 and breeched outside Eden and above water staring week two, and certainly prior to the 1656 anno-mundi Mabul year epoch the Earth was subjected to but not the moon.
    Another example and feather in the cap of ID and YeC where we find earlier than expected by deep-time dependent assumption based models, followed by Stasis. Stasis attests to YeC as adding time, fights an uphill battle vs the law of science aka entropy. So demands ever greater design and maintenance and a greater claim, thus has the greater burden of proof if we are talking science.

Leave a Reply