No not at all. This displays an alarming misunderstanding of physics.
Yeah, it's alarming that I don't consider the Earth and Moon to be one body 
This has been explained many, many times, but here's another take on it. If the sun is indeed ~93 million miles away, and if the moon is indeed ~235,000 miles away, then the moon and earth are about 400 times farther away from the sun than they are to each other. Surely you understand that accepted science maintains that the earth and moon are much, much closer together than the earth-moon system and the sun are? Gauss's Law implies that the gravitational field in a region is proportional to the mass enclosed divided by the surface area of the enclosed region. This means that the gravitational field through any region is approximately the same as if all the mass were concentrated at a single point in the center of the region. Because of this fact, we can show that if we were standing on the sun, the earth and moon would be so distant that the distance between the two would be insignificant, and we could treat them approximately as a single body at their center of mass. (a center of mass which would still be inside the earth)
Now imagine if we were to determine the Milky Way's gravitational influence on another distant galaxy. The galaxies are so far apart that they are approximately point masses located at the galactic center. Obviously, the billions of stars and nebulae in our galaxy are not all the same object, but the calculated gravitational influence would still be a very accurate description. After all, if we were to actually calculate billions of gravitational influences on billions of other gravitational influences, that would take far too long and yield very similar results, proving that our attempts were pretty much in vain.
In another example, potential energy of spring (1/2)kx^2 is only a first order power series approximation; it is only good for small angles, since sin(x) ≈ x for small angles. But would you deny that the energy stored in a spring is (1/2)kx^2? It is a very good approximation since the next few terms drop off with division by large factorials.