On Sun, 21 Nov 1999 23:20:32 -0800, Cliff Lundberg wrote:
[...]
>SJ>To the above broad categories of: 1. universe; 2. first life; 3. basic kinds
>>of life; I would add to the following: 4. the Earth-Moon system; 5.
>>irreducibly complex molecular machines; and 6. the origin of human consciousness
>>(man's body is already covered in "basic kinds of life" above and is of course
>>interrelated).
CL>#4 jumps out at me as relatively trivial. Can someone refresh my memory
>about why our particular planet-satellite system needs special explanation?
Thanks for Cliff for asking! I would normally agree with Cliff that this is
"relatively trivial", but there is evidence that the moon was formed by an impact
with a planet-sized object about 4 bya. See this extract of Hugh Ross's article
below:
"A fourth hypothesis was shrugged off for decades because it seemed too
unlikely. But today it is favored, for it matches much of the observational
data. I'll call it the Collision Hypothesis. According to this scenario, the
earth experienced a head-on crash with a Mars-sized body (that's a body
about one-ninth the mass of earth and nine times more massive than the
moon)...The beauty of this hypothesis lies in its capacity to explain such
wonders as the differing composition of the earth and the moon. Moon
rock combines the earth's elements with elements of the colliding body,
both chemically altered by intense heat...I see yet another beauty in this
hypothesis, the beauty it suggests about God's careful planning for planet
Earth as the home for His splendid plants and animals and humans. The
size of the body colliding with Earth, the nature of the collision, and the
timing of the collision all must be fixed within certain narrow limits or life
on Earth would be impossible."
So precisely fine-tuned was this impact that astronomers have difficulty
modelling it on their computers, yet they still believe it to be the best
theory (see Hecht J., "The making of a Moon", New Scientist, 2 August 1997,
p8. http://www.newscientist.com/ns/970802/nmoon.html).
If this one impact:
1) created a larger iron core and thus stronger gravity to hold an eventual
atmosphere, as well as a stronger magnetic field to deflect cosmic
radiation;
2) blasted away the original toxic atmosphere;
3) tilted the Earth on its axis to allow for seasons;
4) formed a large moon which would cause tides and an intertidal zone, thus
facilitating the eventual invasion of the land by sea creatures;
and maybe
5) created the original Gondwanaland land-mass
then it was so improbable that it is reasonable for a theist who believes
that God can intervene supernaturally, to believe that God *did* intervene
supernaturally!
Steve
=========================================================================
http://www.reasons.org/resources/FAF/95q1faf/95q1moon.html
Lunar Origin Update By Hugh Ross, Ph.D.
Next time you gaze up at the moon in wonder, I trust your wonder will be
heightened by the story you are about to read. The formation of our moon
is cloaked in mystery, but as that veil is drawn back by on going research,
we see hints of an awesome spectacle. If only we had the capacity to go
back and see it!
Many years have passed since I last put anything about the moon in print,
and an update is long overdue. In the late 1970s (when I last wrote on the
subject), astronomers faced a perplexing dilemma. They had developed
three hypotheses for the moon's formation, and all of them violated natural
laws.[1] At the time I enjoyed quoting astronomer Ralph Baldwin's tongue-
in-cheek comment that the moon is either a mirage or a miracle.[2] At the
very least, it represented an enigma.
Let me begin by reviewing the three hypotheses and their difficulties:
The Co-formation Hypothesis proposed that the sun, planets, and most of
the satellites (i.e., moons), including Earth's moon, condensed out of the
same gas and dust cloud at approximately the same time. The Fission
Hypothesis suggested that a piece of the earth became detached somehow,
leaving behind a large depression such as the Pacific Ocean basin. The
Capture Hypothesis said that the moon was gravitationally captured, first
by the solar system and later by the earth. If the co-formation hypothesis
were correct, the moon's composition should be almost identical to Earth's,
but it is not, as Apollo lunar explorations revealed. Further, none of the
models depicting how gas and dust clouds condense into planetary systems
produce anything like the earth-moon system. Technically, this system
counts as a double planet because the moon is so large relative to the body
it orbits, much larger (relatively) than all other known or predictable
satellites. In fact, the models show the virtual impossibility of such a
system's forming in close proximity to the sun.
The fission hypothesis could work only if the primordial earth were
rotating at an exceptionally high rate, a rate substantially higher than the
models predict. Further, models show that the various bifurcation
(splitting) models would result in a far more chaotic earth-moon system
than we experience and observe.
The capture hypothesis also defies physics in that the earth is too small and
too close to the sun to capture a foreign body as large as the moon. A
collision or deflection could be conceivable but not a capture.
A fourth hypothesis was shrugged off for decades because it seemed too
unlikely. But today it is favored, for it matches much of the observational
data. I'll call it the Collision Hypothesis. According to this scenario, the
earth experienced a head-on crash with a Mars-sized body (that's a body
about one-ninth the mass of earth and nine times more massive than the
moon).
Picture the enormous impact, the blast of heat and debris. The denser
material of the impacting body would sink into the earth's core. The
collision debris would drift upward to form a huge dust cloud around the
earth, a cloud of material dramatically influenced by the heat of the
explosive event. In time, under the influence of gravity, that dust cloud
would coalesce into a solid body, the moon.
The beauty of this hypothesis lies in its capacity to explain such wonders as
the differing composition of the earth and the moon. Moon rock combines
the earth's elements with elements of the colliding body, both chemically
altered by intense heat.
It also provides an explanation for the earth's unusual atmosphere. If the
earth had enjoyed a normal childhood, its atmosphere would resemble that
of its sister, Venus, dominated by a thick mantle of carbon dioxide. This
atmospheric greenhouse would have boiled away Earth's primordial oceans,
driving the surface temperatures even higher, high enough to melt lead-too
hot for life. A powerful collision, however, would have blasted Earth's
original atmosphere into outer space. The atmosphere forming subsequent
to the collision (from Earth's gases, such as those released by volcanoes)
would be much thinner, permitting both a temperature and chemistry
suitable for life.
In analyzing the tidal forces between the earth and the newly forming moon
in this scenario, researchers have found a plausible explanation for the
moon's slow spiral away from the earth. Again the hypothesis fits.
I see yet another beauty in this hypothesis, the beauty it suggests about
God's careful planning for planet Earth as the home for His splendid plants
and animals and humans. The size of the body colliding with Earth, the
nature of the collision, and the timing of the collision all must be fixed
within certain narrow limits or life on Earth would be impossible.
Whether this collision hypothesis is confirmed or replaced by another, no
doubt time and research will reveal, as always, the signature of divine
design. The next time our amazing celestial companion draws your eyes,
may it also draw your heart in worship to the One who placed it there for
us.
---References1. Ralph B. Baldwin, A Fundamental Survey of the Moon (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965).
2. Baldwin, pp. 42-43.
---This page, and all contents, are Copyright (c) 1995 by Reasons To Believe.[...]
Facts & Faith, First Quarter 1995 Issue
(Ross H., "Lunar Origin Update", Facts & Faith, First Quarter 1995, Reasons To Believe: Pasadena CA.)=========================================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------"Evolution answers some questions but reveals many more questions. Some of these questions at this stage appear to be unanswerable in the light of present scientific knowledge. In common parlance: `The more you know, the more you know you don't know.'" (Price B., "The Creation Science Controversy", Millennium Books: Sydney, 1990, p8) Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones--------------------------------------------------------------------