Evidence of Divine Design of the Moon
While the material on this page is not part of Solar
Geometry, the Earth's moon should also be considered as evidence that it
is not of natural origin.
Solar
Eclipses: Perfection in design? |
 Have
you ever considered that our moon is a near perfect sphere, precisely
distanced and aligned with the sun in a way that creates two identically
sized spheres in the sky, 93 million miles apart, and capable of creating a
total solar eclipse? This only happens because the moon is 1/400th the
size of the sun and 1/400th the distance of the sun, and perfectly aligned on
the same plane as the Earth and Sun. What are the odds of that happening
"naturally?"
(Not to scale)
Synchronized
orbital and rotation periods: Perfection in design? |
 |
Another unusual characteristic of the moon is that its orbital and
rotation periods are perfectly synchronized so that we always see
the same view of the moon's surface as it revolves around the Earth, century after century. |
There
are no
adequate theories of lunar creation |
No theory adequately explains the origin of the Earth's moon.
It's a pairing unlike any other in the solar system. The Earth's Moon is
the fifth largest in the whole solar system, and is bigger than the planet
Pluto. Our moon is far more
massive relative to Earth, for example, than the satellites of all other
planets, except for Pluto, whose moon, Charon, is half its size. The
Earth-moon system also has an unusually high angular momentum, the sum of
the our planet's rotational velocity and the speed at which the moon
orbits the Earth.
Three theories exist for the moon's origin:
The "fission" theory proposed that Earth spun so
rapidly in its early years that the sun's gravity eventually yanked off a
chunk of an increasingly elongated Earth that became the moon. This
theory might explain the moon's lack of a large core and the
oxygen-isotope similarity, but calculations show that the Earth would have
to have had four times its present angular momentum, a lightning-fast
rotational speed that astronomers cannot justify in their models.
The "capture" theory proposed that the moon was
a wandering planet that had been snared by Earth's gravity, but this theory suffers as well. The idea that Earth's
gravity caught a rogue planet might explain the compositional differences
between the two bodies, but then this doesn't explain the moon not having
its own regular-sized core or the similarity of the oxygen-isotopes if the
two formed in different parts of the solar system. Finally, the
chance that a speeding planet would gracefully ease into Earth's embrace
rather than slam into it or career off into space is too remote for
consideration.
The "coaccretion" theory proposed that the Earth and the moon
formed independently but side by side from the same material that formed
all the planets of our solar system. This theory led the pack
through the 1970s, because it doesn't require a low-probability event like
capture. But today this theory faces the same problem regarding the core.
It's very hard to imagine the two bodies growing together but somehow the
Earth magically gets all the iron in it and the moon
doesn't get any. Even more troublesome is that the theory cannot
account for the enormous angular momentum we see in the Earth-moon system
today.
Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tothemoon/origins.html
Lunar
orbital cycles are related to the Earth's rotation |
So we have no satisfactory explanation for the moon's origin, but just
as with the relationships of other planets to Earth, we see a very unusual
relationship of the moon to the Earth:
The lunar orbital period of 29.5306 earth rotations, when divided
into 1447, a prime number, equals 49, or 7 squared, continuing the theme
of sevens seen with Venus and Mars.
Source: http://www.creation-answers.com/time1.htm#top
and http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html
The relationship of Earth to Venus and Mars is more interesting yet.
|
