Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Rosetta finding: Earth’s water not from comets

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From BBC News:

Results from Europe’s Rosetta mission, which made history by landing on Comet 67P in November, shows the water on the icy mass is unlike that on our planet.

The results are published in the journal Science.

The authors conclude it is more likely that the water came from asteroids, but other scientists say more data is needed before comets can be ruled out.

Here’s the abstract:

The provenance of water and organic compounds on the Earth and other terrestrial planets has been discussed for a long time without reaching a consensus. One of the best means to distinguish between different scenarios is by determining the D/H ratios in the reservoirs for comets and the Earth’s oceans. Here we report the direct in situ measurement of the D/H ratio in the Jupiter family comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko by the ROSINA mass spectrometer aboard ESA’s Rosetta spacecraft, which is found to be (5.3 ± 0.7) × 10-4, that is, ~3 times the terrestrial value. Previous cometary measurements and our new finding suggest a wide range of D/H ratios in the water within Jupiter family objects and preclude the idea that this reservoir is solely composed of Earth ocean-like water. (paywall)

See also:

“Behold, countless Earths sail the galaxies … that is, if you would only believe …

The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (origin of life)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
The authors conclude it is more likely that the water came from asteroids, but other scientists say more data is needed before comets can be ruled out.
What we do know is that the current data does not support the idea that comets provided the water for the earth. Whether that will change or not, who knows, but currently there is no data to support that hypothesis. Why do the authors conclude that the water must have come from asteroids? Because of the evidence? No. This idea was out of favor up until now. But if their 'best of class' hypothesis is ruled to be false, then they have to dig down deep into their barrel of ideas and get something, no matter how improbable it may be. There was a reason it was not the in vogue hypothesis. There are a lot of problems with it. Current asteroids are very dry so scientists must dream of a distant past when that was not the case. So here we see scientists proposing something that they never observed and cannot test in order to explain the oceans. But this is not science. It doesn't fit the current data that we have. When scientists have to resort to this kind of story telling to explain something, you know they have a serious problem. Of course, there may be no scientific answer to this question - if God supernaturally created the oceans like the Bible seems to indicate. So take your pick: Far fetched guesses of men who don't really know what happened or the word of the Creator Himself. Question: If the current in vogue theory that was held to be the most promising idea for many years is not true, what makes us think that an out of favor hypothesis that resorts to special pleading will fare any better?tjguy
December 12, 2014
December
12
Dec
12
12
2014
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT
One of the best means to distinguish between different scenarios is by determining the D/H ratios in the reservoirs for comets and the Earth’s oceans. Here we report the direct in situ measurement of the D/H ratio in the Jupiter family comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko by the ROSINA mass spectrometer aboard ESA’s Rosetta spacecraft, which is found to be (5.3 ± 0.7) × 10-4, that is, ~3 times the terrestrial value.
Dr. Walt Brown explains why. It's because the comet's water came from the earth, not the other way around. http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Comets10.html#wp15262751awstar
December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT
Unguided evolution landed a probe on a comet, unguided evolution can land a probe on an asteroid.Andre
December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
03:25 AM
3
03
25
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply