Did Earth’s Oceans Come From Asteroids?

For many years, secular planetary scientists believed condensation from the solar nebula, or comets were responsible for the earth’s oceans.  And it would be easy to assume this considering comets are mostly ice which is why it became a popular idea for many years but with direct observations suggests something different.

These direct observations of comets were conducted by the Stardust and Deep Impact which have shattered theories about the origin speculation of comets. Belgian planetary scientists back in 2009, discounted comets saying the earth is too close to the sun, that carbonaceous chondrites contain water sufficient to create a “veneer” of water after the Earth cooled, but observational data of ratios containing osmium isotopes do not match! Also, other researchers have discovered that  nitrogen isotope ratios differed significantly between comets and Earth’s atmosphere!

In Astrobiology Magazine… “Observations from this sample are changing our previous thinking and expectations about how the solar system formed,” a Stardust mission researcher said.

In science daily“A new analysis of dust from the comet Wild 2, collected in 2004 by NASA’s Stardust mission, has revealed an oxygen isotope signature that suggests an unexpected mingling of rocky material between the center and edges of the solar system. Despite the comet’s birth in the icy reaches of outer space beyond Pluto, tiny crystals collected from its halo appear to have been forged in the hotter interior, much closer to the sun.”

What about condensation from the local solar nebula? That is also dead too. Inventing models that suggest the earth is dryer than expected, the so-called “snow line” in planet formation theory is now thought to be even farther out than previously believed which means the water had to be delivered by something.

With everything else discounted, what is next? Their latest option which is out of desperation more than anything else is trying to fit asteroids into the materialist framework along with its difficulties as the source and deliver of the earth’s oceans!

In NASA’s Astrobiology Magazine

“Our results provide important new constraints for the origin of volatiles in the inner Solar System, including the Earth,” Alexander said. “And they have important implications for the current models of the formation and orbital evolution of the planets and smaller objects in our solar system.”

An implication is not a theory anymore than a constraint, generally ad hoc explanations are not scientific.  Because of the desperation with basically no other options left (but that doesn’t mean they could never invent more), there were no calculations on how many asteroids it would take to create the earth’s oceans. Asteroids have more of a problem than comets, because unlike comets which are mostly made of ice, asteroids are mostly made out of rock.

It would take an enormous amount of asteroids to squeeze out carbonaceous chondrites, in fact the earth would have to be covered and this would most certainly be detectable if it happened. Also the timing and size of the asteroids would have to be accurate because volcanoes would have to cease from being so active that the asteroids would avoid being buried in lava and the size is important too! Too big and the asteroids would boil up the oceans!

So did the earth’s oceans come from asteroids? Clearly, not! It was a last-ditch effort to find something in the universe to rescue their hypothesis that could deliver water to the earth in order to create the oceans as icy comets were discounted because of new direct data! It’s time they change their framework to intelligent design, namely God!

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Did Earth’s Oceans Come From Asteroids?

  1. Poor Michael.

    He thinks that if scientists find evidence that earth’s water came from meteorites instead of asteroids—or vice versa[1]—the the earth is only 10,000 years old and was created in six days. But here’s the deal: Whether our oceans came from meteorites, asteroids, planetary dust, or a water park on Jupiter, the solar system is still 4.5 billion years old. The source of the water has nothing to do with the age of the earth, as established by atomic decay rates, the geologic column, astronomical observations, and other sources. And nothing in the sources Michael quotes implies that anyone thinks there is any evidence that that age differs from what has demonstrated.

    Michael’s objective here is to create a diversion. He believes that if he can show that scientists differ on some aspect of a theory, then any cockamamie story that he comes up with must be true. Even though hs story is supported by no evidence whatever.

    Sorry, ol’ buddy. This post is just one more demonstration that creationists have no right to a seat at the table of science.

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

    [1] Michael’s post seems unsure as to which one he thinks that scientists ought to believe.

  2. Michael’s posting rate has doubled recently, even though the sources he uses are not recent. One wonders that perhaps he is trying to escape the questions he could not answer in “Pseudoscientific Poison: Social Darwinism”.

    In case he thinks we have forgotten, Michael was asked to define Social Darwinism, which he utterly misinterpreted, and to to explain any possible sense in a word salad in the post.

    Of course, he might also be attempting to distance himself from the outright lie he uttered in “Discovery of ‘Feathers’ On Dinosaur Rises Questions’. that humans and other mammals have feathers like those of dinosaurs.

    Creationists are adroit in changing the subject when caught with their pants down. They have to be. It happens so frequently.

  3. Olorin,

    You say, “In case he thinks we have forgotten, Michael was asked to define Social Darwinism, which he utterly misinterpreted, and to to explain any possible sense in a word salad in the post.”

    Pins and needles, your most likely wondering how linking the size of brains and animal intelligence to survival of the fittest and then making decisions which species should die and which species should live has any connection with social Darwinism being used in that paper. Do you get it yet or should I connect the dots for you?

  4. The relevance of brain size to species decisions was not the question. Please read it again.

    And there was a second question, too.

  5. “Pins and needles”!

    Brings back memories of rural Indiana. Only the stump jumpers used it, though—not the flatlanders.

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