...or the moon walking in brightness; Job 31:26
"This view, currently the most popular among evolutionists, holds that a hypothetical planet (called Theia) collided with the earth and the resulting debris formed the moon.
This is said to explain the differences between Earth rocks and moon rocks.
The high temperatures generated by the collision would have boiled away volatile elements such as potassium and sodium, but more heat-resistant materials such as aluminium, calcium and thorium would have remained and condensed to form the moon’s crust.
Here, however, it is the similarities between rocks that cannot be explained.
With the impact theory, part of the moon would have formed from the earth and part from the impacting planet.
So the chemistry of moon rocks would be expected to be different to that of Earth rocks. While it is true that the moon is deficient in some Earth elements, those that are shared can have very similar properties.
Elements come in different forms, known as ‘isotopes’ and different rocks contain isotopes in different amounts, giving each an ‘isotope signature’.
Remarkably, the isotope ratios of oxygen, iron, hydrogen, silica, magnesium, titanium, potassium, tungsten and chromium are almost identical in moon and Earth rocks.
At the same time, they are different from other solar system bodies. This is such a problem for the impact theory that, according to some researchers, it is now in crisis.
These near-identical isotope signatures are also a problem for the ‘capture theory’.
Another headache for the impact theory is the growing evidence of significant amounts of water in the moon’s interior. It would be expected that the heat from the impact would have caused this to evaporate."
CMI
"This view, currently the most popular among evolutionists, holds that a hypothetical planet (called Theia) collided with the earth and the resulting debris formed the moon.
This is said to explain the differences between Earth rocks and moon rocks.
The high temperatures generated by the collision would have boiled away volatile elements such as potassium and sodium, but more heat-resistant materials such as aluminium, calcium and thorium would have remained and condensed to form the moon’s crust.
Here, however, it is the similarities between rocks that cannot be explained.
With the impact theory, part of the moon would have formed from the earth and part from the impacting planet.
So the chemistry of moon rocks would be expected to be different to that of Earth rocks. While it is true that the moon is deficient in some Earth elements, those that are shared can have very similar properties.
Elements come in different forms, known as ‘isotopes’ and different rocks contain isotopes in different amounts, giving each an ‘isotope signature’.
Remarkably, the isotope ratios of oxygen, iron, hydrogen, silica, magnesium, titanium, potassium, tungsten and chromium are almost identical in moon and Earth rocks.
At the same time, they are different from other solar system bodies. This is such a problem for the impact theory that, according to some researchers, it is now in crisis.
These near-identical isotope signatures are also a problem for the ‘capture theory’.
Another headache for the impact theory is the growing evidence of significant amounts of water in the moon’s interior. It would be expected that the heat from the impact would have caused this to evaporate."
CMI
