The Moon WASN'T formed with one giant impact but had a bombardment birth after 20 moonlets hit...

Correct a fool, be called foolish.

I would say NO, but I know Someone who was.

It seems the moon could have formed like the Earth formed. The Moon could have aggregated into what it is and gotten close enough for Earth’s gravity to capture it. I don’t understand why a grand collision had to necessarily take place to produce the Moon.

Had the moon been captured, why are we losing it? Well, after zillions of meteoric impacts, I guess the moon IS losing weight. (And so is Earth).

I hope it was Boston Cream doughnut!

Some of the water got here on comets and asteroids. For some million or so years after the Earth began to form it rained for about a few thousand years.

...It seems the moon could have formed like the Earth formed. The Moon could have aggregated into what it is and gotten close enough for Earth’s gravity to capture it. I don’t understand why a grand collision had to necessarily take place to produce the Moon.

The problem is that two independent bodies can not "capture" each other. There is too much momentum and kinetic energy. Unless there is a collision, they will inevitably separate, essentially fly right past each other. If there is a third body, under exactly the right conditions, it may gain momentum and allow two bodies to be mutually captured, but this is very improbable.

OTOH, the earth-moon system is essentially a binary planet. Stand back and look at the whole forest instead of the individual trees. Binary stars are well known and actually very common. Why the earth-moon system could not form by a variation on the same mechanisms that form binary stars is the question we should be asking.

There's a tidal transfer of momentum between the Earth and Moon which over time has slowed down the rotation rate of the Earth. Due to the smaller mass of the Moon (1% of the Earth's), the rotation of the Moon was simlarly transferred to the Earth, the Moon just finished first and now shows the same face. Over enough time, the Earth will either push the Moon away (that'll be a bad crazy day) or will wind up showing the same face to the Moon, as the Moon does to the Earth right now.

Some selections from the lunarorigin keyword, out of the FRchives:

When the Days Were Shorter

10/04/2004 10:31:59 AM PDT · by SunkenCiv · 54 replies · 2,195+ views
Alaska Science Forum (Article #742) | November 11, 1985 | Larry Gedney

Present-day nautilus shells almost invariably show thirty daily growth lines (give or take a couple) between the major partitions, or septa, in their shells. Paleontologists find fewer and fewer growth lines between septa in progressively older fossils. 420 million years ago, when the moon circled the earth once every nine days, the very first nautiloids show only nine growth lines between septa. The moon was closer to the earth and revolved about it faster, and the earth itself was rotating faster on its axis than it is now. The day had only twenty-one hours, and the moon loomed enormous in...
Ancient impact may have bowled the Moon over

10/30/2007 7:39:35 PM PDT · by SunkenCiv · 12 replies · 217+ views
New Scientist | April 17, 2007 | David Powell

An enormous impact basin located near the lunar south pole may have caused the Moon to roll over early in its history, new research suggests... Called the South Pole-Aitken (SPA) basin, it is 2500 kilometres wide and 12 kilometres deep and is thought to have been created about 4 billion years ago. Francis Nimmo of the University of California in Santa Cruz, US, believes the impact probably occurred near the Moon's equator. That is because the equator lies in the plane of most other objects in the solar system and therefore would more likely be in a hurtling space rock's...
Far side of the moon 'could have been visible from earth'

01/23/2009 12:23:42 AM PST · by LibWhacker · 23 replies · 685+ views
Telegraph | 1/21/09 | Kate Devlin

The far side of the moon could have been visible from earth billions of years ago, a new study suggests.The relative rotations of the moon and the earth mean that only the one side is ever visible. However, scientists believe that the impact of a large asteroid hitting the moon could have flipped it around, turning a different side that we now see towards earth. A study of craters on the far side of the moon suggests that it was hit by a large object around 3.9 billion years ago.
The Moon may have formed in a nuclear explosion

01/30/2010 12:03:32 AM PST · by LibWhacker · 30 replies · 787+ views
PhysOrg | 1/28/10 | Lin Edwards

(PhysOrg.com) -- A new theory suggests the Moon was formed after a natural nuclear explosion in the Earth's mantle rather than after the impact of a massive object with the Earth, as previously thought. The problem with the impact hypothesis is that simulations calculate the Moon should be composed of 80% impactor and 20% Earth, whereas in fact the isotope ratios of light and heavy elements found in Moon rocks so far examined are virtually identical to those on Earth. The fission hypothesis is an alternative explanation for the formation of the moon, and it predicts similar isotope ratios in...

The term settled science isn't scientific, it's political. The problem for some people is that science is a method rather than a body of knowledge. When new information becomes available, previous ideas have to be amended or abandoned. By contrast, any new information has to be rejected by people who think they already know everything.

Copernicus' borrowed idea that the Sun was the center of the Universe isn't actually correct -- our Sun isn't even the center of the galaxy, something known thanks to new information. Newton believed that acceleration could go on indefinitely, but this was thrown out due to later observations, and Einstein's development of relativity.

Newton and others were also wrong about orbits -- Kepler was wrong at first, but realized that orbits are elliptical, with some more closley approaching circularity than others. That discovery was due to Tycho Brahe's and Kepler's own observations of the motion of Mars.

“The problem is that two independent bodies can not “capture” each other. “

Not sure of that. Some believe the moons on mars are captured asteroids. Of course this is all speculation. No one knows.

How do they know the moon has been our satellite for some 4.5 billion years when they know there is no historical evidence for this,but some saying otherwise?

I'm willing to entertain that notion.

Jupiter’s got dozens of moons, and most of them are captures. They are also moving in retrograde orbits, which is often considered diagnostic of capture. Capture of a smaller body can also be accomplished by repeated encounters, as described briefly here by the late V.A. Firsoff:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1234919/posts?page=4#4

Whoops, the retrograde moons are the ones I was talking about overall — the four Galilean moons and other inner moons are in prograde orbit.

Some of the water got here on comets and asteroids. For some million or so years after the Earth began to form it rained for about a few thousand years.

I am wondering if it is still coming into the atmosphere, thus explaining rising sea levels?

Water is the most abundant element on the planet. There is every argument for the rising an lowering of sea levels but if there is any rise in sea levels from what I know it’s imperceptible at best. It’s not what the climate change doomsday sayers go on about , positing that it happens virtually in a matter of months.

Thanks for the info!

...Water is the most abundant element on the planet...

Water is not even an element.

And, it is not the most abundant compound by any measure except surface area coverage.

Back to chemistry class for you.

When the Days Were Shorter

Ancient impact may have bowled the Moon over

Far side of the moon 'could have been visible from earth'

The Moon may have formed in a nuclear explosion