Splitting of the Moon

[Anomalocaris]

So the fact that the moon was thought to have coalesced 4.6 billion years ago means the moon had been split by Muhammad during the 7th century?

That would be a stretch for even the most ignorant and desperate,  but being a Muslim in the age of science, you are apparent even more ignorant, and desperate, than the most ignorant and desperate.

[WinterHold]

So the fact that the moon was thought to have coalesced 4.6 billion years ago means the moon had been split by Muhammad during the 7th century?

That would be a stretch for even the most ignorant and desperate,  but being a Muslim in the age of science, you are apparent even more ignorant, and desperate, than the most ignorant and desperate.

Did the verse say that the moon was split in Mohammed's time?
I expect you to prove what you claimed. Here is the original verse, from the source, in both Arabic and English:

https://quran.com/54/1?translations=20

The verse didn't even mention Mohammed. So how did you form your claim?
With that dealt with, you totally ignored the scientific proof that the moon was actually split from the earth; after a collision; and that this is the widely accepted scientific theory.

[Gwaithmir]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Moon

The impact hypothesis doesn't indicate that the Moon was split because the Moon did not yet exist before the Earth was impacted. 

Sura 54 is nothing more than fiction.

[LastPoet]

So the fact that the moon was thought to have coalesced 4.6 billion years ago means the moon had been split by Muhammad during the 7th century?

That would be a stretch for even the most ignorant and desperate,  but being a Muslim in the age of science, you are apparent even more ignorant, and desperate, than the most ignorant and desperate.

Did the verse say that the moon was split in Mohammed's time?
I expect you to prove what you claimed. Here is the original verse, from the source, in both Arabic and English:

https://quran.com/54/1?translations=20

The verse didn't even mention Mohammed. So how did you form your claim?
With that dealt with, you totally ignored the scientific proof that the moon was actually split from the earth; after a collision; and that this is the widely accepted scientific theory.

This is the hallmark of theistic thought. Start with the conclusion then backpedal down to match the premisses.

You want those stories to be true, hence, you self lobotomize to feel supported by science.

[Dmitry1983]

Really, how can Muslims believe such nonsense that Mohammed split the Moon? 

Omnipotent God can give power to perform miracles to a human. I don't see any problem here. 
Or are you suggesting that some miracles even God can't perform?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Really, how can Muslims believe such nonsense that Mohammed split the Moon? 

Omnipotent God can give power to perform miracles to a human. I don't see any problem here. 
Or are you suggesting that some miracles even God can't perform?

Omnipotent God made imperfect Universe. Gotcha.

[Dmitry1983]

Omnipotent God can give power to perform miracles to a human. I don't see any problem here. 
Or are you suggesting that some miracles even God can't perform?

Omnipotent God made imperfect Universe. 

So?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Omnipotent God made imperfect Universe. 

So?

♫So, a needle pulling thread!♫

[Anomalocaris]

So the fact that the moon was thought to have coalesced 4.6 billion years ago means the moon had been split by Muhammad during the 7th century?

That would be a stretch for even the most ignorant and desperate,  but being a Muslim in the age of science, you are apparent even more ignorant, and desperate, than the most ignorant and desperate.

Did the verse say that the moon was split in Mohammed's time?
I expect you to prove what you claimed. Here is the original verse, from the source, in both Arabic and English:

https://quran.com/54/1?translations=20

The verse didn't even mention Mohammed. So how did you form your claim?
With that dealt with, you totally ignored the scientific proof that the moon was actually split from the earth; after a collision; and that this is the widely accepted scientific theory.

Uhhh:

1.  The moon didn't split.   It accreted.   

2.  The current hypothesis is the moon formed from a combination of material that was in the proto-earth, and the other planet which struck the proto-earth.   The moon wasn't split from the earth.  When the material that would become the moon arrived in orbit, There was as yet no earth.   There was the proto-earth, which was a substantially different planet than what earth is today.   It had a substantially different composition, was likely somewhat smaller and less massive, than earth.    Scientists say "earth" was struck mainly to humor simple minded morons like you whose power of comprehension is stuck in the 7th century and incapable of grasping the seemingly subtle yet profound differences of the kind that permeates reality, but absent from infantile fantasies.    


The more accurate way to visualize the hypothesis is there were two primitive planets, one about twice as large as the other.   They came from somewhat different parts of the accretionary disk out of which the planets and moons of the solar system formed.   So their bulk  composition and volatile contents were somewhat different.    


Furthermore, they experienced not one, but two off-center collision.   This is necessary to add enough angular momentum to account for the present earth moon system, without adding so much collisional energy in the process that the two bodies would gravitationally dissociate and end up as a debris disk around the sun.    During the initial collision the mantles of the two planets struck, and became severely disrupted, while the cores of the two bodies missed each other and sailed past each other, although the friction of the mantle collision slowed the cores relative to eachother.   Immediately after collision, the larger of the two bodies retained majority of its mantle, while the smaller planet lost majority of its mantle.  Much of the mantle material material lost by both bodies then mixed and formed a debris cloud around the site of the collision.   Note the debris cloud would proportionally have a much higher contribution from the smaller of the two planets than their pre-collision relative mass would suggest.    This is necessary to account for why the present earth retained so much larger inventory of volatile materials than the moon.  


The cores then slowed, stopped and fell back towards each other under their mutural gravities, before they underwent a second collision.  This time they stuck, and the two cores sank through the remaining mantle envelope of the larger of the two bodies towards their new common center of gravity, and eventually merged into a single new core.   While much of the debris cloud from the collision fell back onto the new merged body to form the new mantle, this completed the formation of the new earth.   The key here is the new earth is a substantially different planet from either of the pre-existing bodies that collided, with total newly formed internal structure, made from mix of the materials from the two pre-impact bodies.   Note the moon still didn't exist.   And yet earth would never lose any substantial amount of mass, or split, ever again down to the very present.

The remaining materials in the debris cloud than formed into a debris disk, the debris disk than likely accreted over hundred to thousands of years into most likely more than 1 moon, well after the new earth has formed.  These multiple moons than likely accreted into eachother to form earth's one single giant moon, note the moon(s) didn't split, the earth didn't split.   Instead moon(s) merged around the earth.   


So, no, my scientifically ignorant friend, science does not say the moon split.   It also does not say the earth split to form the moon.


In all versions, the moons merged without ever having split in the first place.   The earth also didn't split to form the moon.   There was really not  an earth to split when the material for the moon arrived at where the moon would later form.  


Instead of wasting you life reading the koran and racking your brains to justify the unjustifiable,  try to actually gain enriching understanding of the subtle essences of science, instead of trying to hijack gross caricatures if science for use in your lamentable effort to justify the unjustifiable.   

BTW, once upon a time, the notion that the moon was truly split from the earth, with pacific ocean basin being the scar from the separation, was a viable scientific hypothesis.    It has since been proven dynamically untenable.   Laws of physics could not be made to allow that possibility.    So science progressed.   But that was a 20th century development.   Beholden as you are to rambling of the more ignorant of the denizens of the 7th century, it is of course to much to ask that you take note of what wouldn't happen until humanity progressed another 13 centuries.     

Now we are in the 21st century, the latest results from analysis of the detailed composition of the moon, using methods not available a decade ago, have shown the moon contained more volatile material than would be expected if it formed from in so energetic a way as a planetary collision between proto-earth and another planet half as large.   This opened the big splat hypothesis of the lunar formation to fresh debate and analysis.  So should you "splitting earth" science turned out to be wrong, what will you say then?

---

Omnipotent God made imperfect Universe. 

So?

God is an incompetent, brain dead fool unworthy of worship or trust, except by the truly worthless.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The second planetoid is called "Theia".