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.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Comets Delivering Water To Earth?

  1. There are many problems with Astrobiology, in fact one could question its science vitality with the expansion of knowledge. Like [sic] in any false religion, they take a particular part of Scripture out of context and then build a whole doctrine around it.

    Um, Michael…. Yet another example of making things up and then attributing them to scientists. Astrobiologists have not, do not, and never will take Scripture out of context, because they do not consider Scripture in formulating their theories.

    As an exercise in creationist contortion, however, you may wish to explain which particular part of Scripture pertains to comets delivering water to the Earth, what the context of that particular part of Scripture consists of, and how the D/H ratio of 103P/Hartley 2 manages to take that particular part of Scripture out of context.

    Before answering, you might wish to consult creationist orthodoxy on the existence vel non of the Kuiper belt, whence this comet is said to come. For example, “Oort cloud and Kuiper belt are ad-hoc fantasies of astronomers.

    .

    I thought not.

  2. 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.

    …. 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.

    We frequently wonder whether Michael is merely ignorant, or is deliberately lying to his readers. My own view is that he fosters a reckless disregard for truth: If something supports his view, then he says it, whether true or not. And some actually believe him.[1]

    It is of course true that no planets have formed in a laboratory. Probably because Michael would vote against the tax dollars needed to build a laboratory large enough to house an actual star.

    However, astronomers do look up unto the heavens (whence cometh their help) and observe planets in the process of forming from circumstellar clouds. For example, “Astrophysicists observe a circumstellar disk with telltale signs of planet formation” This example comes from the same magazine that Michael references in this post, by the way,[2] so he claims ignorance at his peril. Michael might also note “Planet Formation Observed Around Massive Stars,” Universe Today, January 6, 2010. Aaaaand perhaps “Astronomers observe second wave of planet formation in two old stars.,” Oneindia News.[3]

    So we ask again.: How can even ________,, ________, and _________ believe Michael when he lies so transparently? I put it down to their total lack of critical thinking, but there may be other factors as well.

    ===================

    [1] We might mention names from the “like” list here. And one or two others who have vowed never to get contradicted again in this forum.

    [2] Some of the techniques used for studying these planetary disks is described in Casoli, Lequex & David “Infrared astronomy, today and tomorrow, Session LXX” from the NATO Advanced Study Institute

    [3] Michael might also review his understanding of actual scientific explanations of the formation:of planetary disks “:baked from the sun,” Michael says. BWAHAHAHAHA.

  3. Olorin,

    You say with bliss, “We frequently wonder whether Michael is merely ignorant, or is deliberately lying to his readers. My own view is that he fosters a reckless disregard for truth: If something supports his view, then he says it, whether true or not. And some actually believe him. It is of course true that no planets have formed in a laboratory. Probably because Michael would vote against the tax dollars needed to build a laboratory large enough to house an actual star.”

    Secular Scientists say planets came from dust, you got that in my post right? If the dust is not clumping together in the lab as expected, how do you think they can eventually form planets? Stuff happens because you think it was originally created by dust? If you can’t test this, does this mean your ‘theory” is not science? Is merely imagination the basis for your science?

  4. If the dust is not clumping together in the lab as expected, how do you think they can eventually form planets?

    Right. And thus far we have been unable to sustain nuclear fusion in the laboratory. According to Michael’s reasoning, this means that the Sun cannot operate by nuclear fusion.

    Sometimes, scale is important, and quantity becomes quality.[1]

    .

    If you can’t test this, does this mean your ‘theory” is not science? Is merely imagination the basis for your science?

    If we can’t test it in the laboratory, we have to fall back on actual observation in the field.

    We always thought that Michael preferred observation to mere theorizing. But this now appears not to be the case.

    Or is it that whatever seems to fit his own viewpoint is to be preferred?

    =============

    [1] This was originally said by V.I. Lenin. He was speaking of tanks.

  5. Olorin,

    Perhaps you don’t get it, what are computer models? Does that ring a bell? Here is the thing, Clumps of material a meter across requires miraculous help. Why? The gravity from the star would destroy the material being able to clump together which is expected in planetary evolution. Here is what was written in nature back in 2009, to solve this problem…

    “The rarity of planetesimals smaller than 100 km in diameter at the end of stage 1 seems to rule out the possibility that dust aggregates somehow made it across the metre-size barrier by gradually sweeping up material from their surroundings. Instead, objects must have grown very rapidly from sub-metre-sized pebbles into 100-km-sized bodies, possibly in a single leap.”

    Do you know what Chambers wants the public to believe? He has invented a story that claims the material the size of small stones that you could throw with your bare hand grew into the size of New York, and not over a long period of time, but rather instantaneously! This is the same notion you criticized me about creation happening in days! Mercury was a slightly different example of what happens with the lack of observational data. The ‘theories’ did not explain anything of what the space probe discovered so far in six months. Science daily challenged planetary scientists to go back to the drawing board. Perhaps your are confused with operational science and historical stories. They are not one in the same.

  6. Amazing! In the past few months, Michael has sneered at the very idea of computer models, claiming several times in the past few months that the desired result is already programmed into the model.[1]

    But now he favors such models, even over contrary observation of planets in various stages of accreting from dust clouds around a number of stars.

    While the mechanism for passing meter-sized bodies is unknown, there are many observations of disks on both sides of this stage. Current hypotheses posit that the passage from sub-meter to km planetesimals occurs early and rapidly.[2]

    Once again, large numbers confuse creationists. They always reckon them much smaller than they actually are. Perhaps a sort of relativistic foreshortening.

    [Chambers] has invented a story that claims the material the size of small stones that you could throw with your bare hand grew into the size of New York, and not over a long period of time, but rather instantaneously! This is the same notion you criticized me about creation happening in days!

    Michael apparently considers 10 million years (the NATO paper’s estimate) to be “days.” Question, Michael: How many days are there in 10,000,000 years?

    Still and all, 10^7 years is a very short time in the history of the real universe.[3] We must defer to Eelco for whether any planetary disks have actually been observed exactly at this stage, but it seems that the statistics star formation would make it unlikely. Even if we are now observing a disk now at this stage, however, few astronomers can remain glued to their telescopes for a million years or so to actually see a disk actuality passing from one side to the other of this stage.[4]

    Once again, Michael has impaled himself on the creationist canard that all rapid processes are perforce recent. There is a point at which bull-headed denial is indistinguishable from delusion.

    ================

    [1] Since weather forecasting relies upon computer models, Michael believes that meteorologists plug in the weather they desire, then present it to us in the 10 o’clock news.

    [2] See, e.g., the previously cited NATO paper, Sec. 9.4—

    Then we have evidence that not only that both populations of (mm and kn size bodies) form early in the disk history, but also that they coexist for a very long time; the formation of planetesimals is not followed by a rapid disappearance of mm size grains.

    [3] As opposed to the creationist cosmos.

    [4] I was about to call it a “milestone” Heh heh. Sorry :-)

  7. Perhaps your are confused with [sic, 0] operational science and historical stories. They are not one in [sic] the same

    Perhaps Michael is confused. He seems to believe that actual observations of planets in several stages of formation from disks is not credible, as “historical” science.

    .

    More generally, Michael clings tightly to the falsehood that soi-disant “historical” science is methodologically inferior to “operational” science, or that its results are necessarily less certain.[1] This notion has been amply refuted.[2]

    But this makes no sense in any event. Hypothesized historical events are inferred from presently observed evidence. Yet even so-called “observed” events require inferences and interpretations. Suppose Michael observes—
    (a) Skid marks leading to an overturned car in a ditch;
    (b) A shimmering lake far off in the middle of a hot desert.
    From the first, he infers that an accident has happened, and may search for survivors.
    From the second observation, he crawls toward the lake to quench his thirst.
    Which of these is more likely to be correct, the historical reconstruction of the accident, or the “operational observation” of the mirage?

    Operational science always makes inferences, and the inferences are of exactly the same character as historical inferences. Michael seems not to doubt the existence of neutrinos. Yet no one has ever seen a neutrino with the naked eyeball. Here is how neutrinos are detected:

    Antineutrinos with an energy above the threshold of 1.8 MeV caused charged current “inverse beta-decay” interactions with the protons in the water, producing positrons and neutrons. The resulting positron annihilations with electrons created pairs of coincident photons with an energy of about 0.5 MeV each, which could be detected by the two scintillation detectors above and below the target. The neutrons were captured by cadmium nuclei resulting in delayed gamma rays of about 8 MeV that were detected a few microseconds after the photons from a positron annihilation event

    We would invite Michael to count the number of inferences-required to detect this elusive particle. Five, at least—all of which must be independently valid in order for the neutrino to be “directly observed.”

    And, of course, the existence of numerous optical illusions demonstrates how many inferences our brains make even for simple visual observations.

    Denialism on the basis of “historical” science is an act of desperation, pure and simple. Everyone except creationists know this.

    ===============

    [0] No one would confuse me with either of these. Do you think I look I like like or sound like a historical story? (Perhaps I might be mistaken for a ha’i mo’olelo, but that is a different story, so to speak.)

    [1] The boundaries between these two categories is diffuse. Some claim that the categories do not, or should not, even exist.

    [2] See, e.g. Cleland, “Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method” Geology, 29(11):987-990 (2001).

  8. Michael may be interested—

    Genetics of Original Sin: The impact of natural selection on the future of humanity
    Christian de Duve, with Neil Patterson. Foreword by E.O. Wilson
    Yale University Press, 2010

    A Nobel prize winning scientist considers how and why the unprecedented success of the human species on Earth now threatens the future of the planet. He offers original ideas for changing our destructive behavior.

    Ummm. Quite a task there, Prof. de Duve. You’ll never change Michael.

  9. Yet another physics joke:

    A policemen stops Werner Heisenberg on the highway, and says, “Do you have any idea how fast you were going?”

    “No,” Heisenberg replies, “but I know exactly where I am.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s