Comets Delivering Water To Earth?

There are many problems with Astrobiology, in fact one could question its science vitality with the expansion of knowledge. Like in any false religion, they take a particular part of Scripture out of context and then build a whole doctrine around it.  As a result, they invent rescue explanations in order to preserve the doctrine. In Astrobiology, we see that also with the invented notion of  comets at one point in time delivering water to earth.

After many comets falsifying their story, one comet was discovered to have a D/H ratio that closely resembled the oceans on earth. It was hailed as a confirmation on their hypothesis. Astrobiology Magazine writes…

“However, the new results also raise new questions. Until now, scientists assumed that the distance of a body’s origin from the Sun correlated to the deuterium-to-hydrogen ratio in its water. The farther away this origin lies from the Sun, the larger this ratio should be. With a “birth place” within the Kuiper belt and thus well beyond the orbit of Neptune, Hartley 2, however, seems to violate this rule.”

“Either the comet originated in greater proximity to the Sun than we thought”, says Hartogh, “or the current assumptions on the distribution of deuterium have to be reconsidered.” And maybe Hartley 2 is a so-called Trojan that originated close to Jupiter and could never overcome its gravitational pull.”

While the discovery raises more questions than answers, does one comet among many others confirm their hypothesis? No! Only if you assume it to be true in the first place  then any tiny indication would be a confirmation. And yes, they are also trying to justify using taxpayers money for this particular research in tough economic times. So why are secular scientists searching for water on comets? After all, they reject the Bible that the earth was formed out of water and by water, creating a story that suggests dust baked from the sun clumped together over a massive amount of time that eventually formed the planet.

Then hot lava dominated the surface making it impossible for liquid water to exist. Tests also have been done on the dust story in the lab but those tests have failed to produce evidence for their formation of planets. So what credible evidence is there? None, it’s the only popular story secular scientists have came come up with that avoids special creation.

This is why there is a huge interest among planetary scientists to find water on comets. It needs to show how the earth became habitable for life that doesn’t conflict with its other story. But this discovery of one comet and the belief that comets delivered water to earth does in fact open a can of worms. Planetary scientists have to invent some sort of explanation on how comets were careful enough in not destroying the earth’s atmosphere,  or how oceans remained intact when huge comets hit the earth.

All this speculation doesn’t really expand any knowledge in science. Its not observable (we can go back in time to watch the event happen nor are they any eyewitness reports), its not testable nor repeatable but rather it contains nothing more than mere speculation. One comet certainly out of many doesn’t verify it either.

Mercury Mission Is Jaw Dropping

The innermost and smallest planet in the Solar System which orbits the sun slightly under 88 days has been the focus of many articles for Messenger’s amazing data collecting mission. Finding things that no theorist would have ever predicted. In fact, last March the mission revealed some eye-popping data that has sent many of them back to the drawing board. Mercury is different from what has been described in the textbooks.

In last week’s journal of science, strange hollows were discovered on Mercury. Could this be something like on Mars which has similar features? It has been speculated that Mars features were a consequence of evaporating carbon dioxide ice. But there is no carbon dioxide ice on Mercury, so what is it? Evidence of volcanism! The strange hollows have been observed with three flybys, and the extent of them exceeded expectations, described by the BBC as having enough lava to cover Washington DC by 26,000 km.

Space.com says…

“Based on the way this lava apparently eroded the underlying surface, the researchers suggest it rushed out rapidly. We can’t say if it took 2.7 days or 15 years or any exact time from orbit, but it wasn’t hundreds of millions of years,” Head added.

Mercury’s northern high latitudes had largely escaped view until now. When we flew by Mercury the first time with Mariner 10, we weren’t really sure if volcanism caused these smooth plains,” Head told SPACE.com. Now we’re in orbit with Messenger, we’re up close and personal, just going around and around and really building up our picture of Mercury.”

What is strange about this observation when it comes to the old age framework, why would very massive volcanism turn on like that, last a few short years, and then stop and then remain unchanged for billions of years?

One of the reasons there is a Mercury mission is trying to solve, it’s magnetic field mystery. Back in the 1970s, scientists were surprised to find that Mercury had one because with the “dynamo theory” it should have frozen out long ago. It suggested that Mercury was younger than billions of years. Mercury’s magnetic field is unable to provide protection from the solar wind.

Science daily writes…

“Only six months into its Mercury orbit, the tiny MESSENGER spacecraft has shown scientists that Mercury doesn’t conform to theory. Its surface material composition differs in important ways from both those of the other terrestrial planets and expectations prior to the MESSENGER mission, calling into question current theories for Mercury’s formation. Its magnetic field is unlike any other in the Solar System, and there are huge expanses of volcanic plains surrounding the north polar region of the planet and cover more than 6% of Mercury’s surface…. Theorists need to go back to the drawing board on Mercury’s formation,” remarked the lead author of one of the papers, Carnegie’s Larry Nittler. “Most previous ideas about Mercury’s chemistry are inconsistent with what we have actually measured on the planet’s surface.”

While some claim planetary scientists enjoy surprises for job security reasons, and designing a spacecraft to be able to gather data is quite a feat, the old-age framework has been one of the reasons why observations are not matching up with theories. Increasing complexity for a theory is never good, it often leads to telling a story and passing it off as better than empirical data. Suggesting bursts of massive lava all over the north, then shut off for billions of years, while things are being hollowed out in a process that could still be ongoing today, is forcing the data into the framework.

While suggesting that a planet is smaller than Titan is able to keep an iron core liquid long enough so that a global magnetic field can survive.  As a result of this complexity, they have to create a planet with elements that were believed not possible to exist so close to the sun, but then keep vast deposits of it intact after billions of years of solar heat and bombardment. Their story telling is not nearly as good as the data itself. The Mercury is a great mission so far and it’s making clearer rather than more complex that it is younger (thousands of years) and designed by a Creator, namely God!

Should There Be Higher Expectations With Space Exploration?

While some evolutionary scientists are working on inventing various scenarios on how they view nature evolving which is impossible to confirm considering not one of these scientists were able to observe the past in which they are studying. For example, birds have been researched over many years to answer a basic question, why do they exist in the evolutionary framework?

From an evolutionist standpoint, a new theory on the origin of birds has been created to answer the basic question. Although it’s not the correct usage of the term ‘theory’ but rather an “hypothesis” so what is their reasoning? According to the new ‘theory’ in Physorg, “Scientist cites enlarged skeletal muscles as reason birds exist.” In other words, this scientist is suggesting that birds have strong muscles; therefore, these amazing creatures must have evolved.  Circular reasoning! Waste of public money!

Now what about these ‘theories’ explaining things like our solar system? Have you ever had a career where management was consistently wrong but yet still considered experts? If management is consistently wrong, nothing could be built or produced. This is not to say there might be efficiency issues which is another subject, but accomplishing products or services to remain in business.

When it comes to exploring space, planetary scientists have a track record of consistently getting it wrong with their various ‘theories’. Unlike Darwinian evolution where one cannot explore the past to verify their speculations, it all depends how popular their explanation is among other scientists, but planetary scientists have been able to do some direct observing that has tested their ‘theories’ which have failed in more ways than one. This is not to say things like their orbital mechanics are a failure, but on the contrary, it’s been quite amazing to say the least. This part of science is not in question, because this particular part of it does in fact enhance knowledge!

Missions have revealed quite often a completely different reality than from what scientists have told the public they expected to discover from their beliefs in planetary evolution. While keeping the basic ‘theories’ intact which was the problem in the first place for the falsifications, they instead created major revisions with Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, comets, asteroids, and most of the moons of the solar system! This is why direct observation is so important and vastly superior over speculation.

Here are a few examples…

Saturn’s geysering moon Enceladus which data has been confirming creationism is now known for its amazing performances.  The Cassini spacecraft recently made another pass through the geysers at close range and sampled some of the particles. More data of sodium and potassium was discovered which was then used to hype up the mission by speculation about life. However, there is something that was not hyped up to the public with new data coming from Cassini. The challenge of old age assumptions with Enceladus has become a major obstacle in fitting in the data.

Nicholas Altobelli quoted in science daily says, “Enceladus is a tiny icy moon located in a region of the outer Solar System where no liquid water was expected to exist, because of its large distance from the Sun.”   Not only that, but another challenge to the idea of tides having an impact on creating the heat on the moon for billions of years which one expert in here referred to a long time ago. A new study was published in Icarus which was conducted by Chin and Nimmo who calculated that the obliquity tides do not significantly heat Enceladus. Any heating would be around a thousand times too small as a heat source for the moon’s powerful geysers.

Not long ago, scientists were telling the public at large that comets nothing more than dirty snowballs from the pristine outer reaches of the solar system nudged in toward the sun by passing stars. But direct observations have proven otherwise! Missions that included Halley, Borrely, and Tempel, have shown there are minerals that require high temperatures for their formation, calling for radical revisions of ‘theories’.  Now enter Comet Hartley 2, visited last November on Deep Impact’s extended mission, nicknamed EPOXI.  Natalie Wolchover’s headline on Live Science says it all: “Quirky Comet Hartley” which confounds every popular evolutionary idea.

The question is, should the public hold to higher expectations with these so-called experts with space exploration? After all they are spending billions of dollars for this research and look at the results they are getting. This is not to say scientific discovery is bad in fact it’s good because it brings reality back over speculation. The money was well worth spent on the fabulous jobs the techs have been doing for bringing to earth, in our lifetimes, a highly impressive treasure of new data about the solar system.  This includes those who have worked hard for years to save the delicate particles from the Genesis mission! And look at the Cassini mission, its original intent is long since complete and yet it’s still going strong with collecting amazing data!

Messenger Mission Has Begun With Mercury

This is going to be an historic exploration of Mercury, Mariner 10 visited in the planet back 1971 with only a few brief passes which caused a stir back then. Now settled in orbit, Messenger will be collecting breath-taking data for the next three years! This is welcomed news for creation science as the second smallest planet in the solar system has been a major challenge for evolutionists but confirming data for creationism.

Last time Mariner 10 flew by the planet it gathered some interesting data as well, such as Mercury’s magnetic field was discovered! Evolutionary scientists have come up with a story called the ‘dynamo’ theory, which was designed for the assumption of the solar-system being billions of years old and still have a magnet field because all other mechanisms would require that the planets be very young!

The reason why Mercury had been such a surprise for evolutionists because of  its magnetic field that contains north-south asymmetry which affects interaction of the planet’s surface with charged particles from the solar wind. Why would a small planet like Mercury having a magnetic field be a problem for planet evolution? Because for a planet to be billions of years old and still have a magnetic field, there must be fluid motions within a planet’s core.

Therefore, the core itself must be molten. As one scientist put it, ‘Mercury is so small that the general opinion is that the planet [i.e. its core] should have frozen solid aeons ago’ which presents a problem and therefore, the core cannot be molten, and so evolutionary theories would have to conclude that Mercury cannot have a magnetic field. But yet it does and now its magnetic field is labeled as one of the mysteries of science as a result of the data not matching up with a fundamental theory in planet evolution and hopes Messenger will give them enough data to come up with a solution.

Other observational data which does not match up with the assumptions of planetary evolution and considered another mystery of science, is the high density that Mercury has which is also second to Earth’s density in the solar system. This is a problem within the slow-and-gradual-development models. Like in other cases in the solar system that have particular data problems, the unobserved and historic catastrophic collision was invoked. What is the evidence for this collision? Nothing!

Even with little gravity, this surprise consists of Mercury having an atmosphere but even more of a surprise, Mercury is loosing its  thin atmosphere and this of course presents a problem with the assumption that the planet is billions of years old. So it somehow needs “the atmosphere has to be constantly regenerated” says one scientist. How this happens is unknown, again they lay hope on the Messenger mission will give them ideas.

This historic exploration of Mercury will certainly be of great interest. Keep in mind discoveries can happen by accident as it doesn’t normally follow a particular method. Also, discoveries can happen by a hunch or a dream or even by mistake! But when it comes to explaining those discoveries that is an entirely different concept. Remember to keep discovery and explanation separate from one another when reading articles such as these.  Scientists with their reporters will often mix them together, giving the illusion there is only one explanation between the two but there is not! The next three years is going to be exciting, can’t wait to see what is going on with Mercury!