"Science Talk" on Origins - Why/How a wet planet?

Moon vs. Earth NASA photo (Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter)

National Geographic Article


Scientific Method: Observation, Hypothesis, Prediction, Experiment, Conclusion
 

Some problems with the "science" in the National Geographic article:

1. Non-observational "science" - The researchers did not observe the appearance of water on the Earth.
2. Non-experimental "science" - The researchers cannot repeat their ideas with attempts to generate oceans on other planets.
3. Calling research "science", even though it breaks the chain of scientific reasoning.
4. Calling originators of this research "scientists", even though they don't follow the scientific method.
5. Reporting "thought"s, "suspect"s, "may"s, and "suggest"s as good quality science.

Some problems with original Science article: Adam R. Sarafian, Sune G. Nielsen, Horst R. Marschall, Francis M. McCubbin, Brian D. Monteleone, "Early accretion of water in the inner solar system from a carbonaceous chondrite–like source." Science 31 Oct 2014: Vol. 346, Issue 6209, pp. 623-626.

1. "Astronomers know that interstellar water is abundantly available to young planetary systems—our blue planet collected (or accreted) plenty of it." - Logical fallacy here: Hasty Generalization (what other "young planets" besides the solitary example of Earth?)
2.  "Sarafian et al. measured water isotopes in meteorite samples from the asteroid Vesta for clues to the timing of water accretion. Their samples have the same isotopic fingerprint of volatiles as both Earth and carbonaceous chondrites, some of the most primitive meteorites. The findings suggest that Earth received most of its water relatively early from chondrite-like bodies." - Logical fallacy here: False Dilemma (what if the meteorites were generated by the Earth?)
3. "The H, C, and N isotopic similarities between eucrites, Earth, and potentially the Moon allow us to place important limits [emphasis added] on the timing of water delivery to the inner solar system. Earth cannot provide timing [emphasis added] of water delivery because it is currently geologically active. The Moon likely accreted its water at or before ~200 million years after CAIs, or around 4367 Ma (3, 23), but such a constraint is not very rigorous, given that all the planets in the inner solar system are thought to have fully accreted by this time. Eucrites provide a substantially earlier data point, which suggests that the source of Earth’s water was present in the inner solar system very early, ~8 to 20 million years after CAIs (15, 16). This evidence moves back the time at which the terrestrial water reservoir is thought to exist and have been available for accretion. Additionally, this reservoir was present between 1 and 2.4 AU and perhaps throughout the inner solar system. Late-stage addition of water to planets from outer parts of the solar system is therefore unlikely to have affected the water budgets of inner solar system bodies. Thus, the bulk of the highly volatile elements H, C, and N now present in Earth and the asteroid belt most likely arrived from a local source (i.e., carbonaceous chondrite–like material) very early in solar system history. The limited variation in δD over a large range of heliocentric distances (1 to 2.4 AU) supports the notion of a uniform source of water in the inner solar system." - Logical fallacy here: Arguing from Ignorance (there is way too much uncertainty to write a scientific research paper)

Modern Scientific "Progress" (a.k.a. "Upheaval")

We must still consider modern scientific theories and "consensus" teaching. Are they trustworthy?

Nobel Prize accredited revolutions:

• Stem Cells (2012 Nobel in Physiology) - Sir John B. Gurdon and Shinya Yamanaka overturned the theory that adult stem cells can only be multipotent, not pluripotent (able to generate all human cell types). Source: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2012/press.html

• Crystals (2011 Nobel in Chemistry) - Dan Shechtman (who holds a professorship at Iowa State University) overturned the theory that all crystals are periodic (repetitious in pattern). Source: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2011/press.html

• Chromosomes (2009 Nobel in Physiology or Medicine) - Elizabeth H. Blackburn, and Jack W. Szostak overturned the teaching that telomeres have no significant function in chromosomes. Source: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2009/press.html

• HIV (2008 Nobel in Physiology or Medicine) - Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Luc Montagnier overturned the teaching that all retroviruses (single strange RNA viruses capable of reverse transcribing, or producing, DNA to insert into and control host cells) cause uncontrolled cell growth. Source: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2008/press.html

• Plastics (2000 Nobel in Chemistry) - Alan J. Heeger, Alan G. MacDiarmid, and
  Hideki Shirakawa overturned the theory that all plastics are insulators (electrically non-conductive). Source: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2000/press.html

• Proteins (1999 Nobel in Physiology or Medicine) - Günter Blobel overturned the assumption that zip-code mailing systems are an invention of man (Blobel revealed that proteins bear intrinsic signaling/"zip-code" addressing within the cell). Source: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1999/press.html

As a graduate student in Materials Science & Engineering, I should note that I'm not anti-science. I do not approach all scientific teaching with skepticism. However, I do believe that history shows that the scientific community makes huge mistakes and oversights--bringing into question adopting scientific teaching as truth.

What is trustworthy--scientific theory?

First-off, what is a scientific theory?

A scientific theory is basically an explanation for some aspect(s) of the natural world which has been, apparently, confirmed many times by observation or experiment. So, scientific theories have majority approval, commonly called "consensus", among academics and scientists.

Are scientific theories trustworthy? Otherwise put, is it reasonable to place trust in scientific consensus?

This question requires historical research. Investigation into the field of Biology digs up the following theories:

• Miasma Theory (ancient times - 1880 A.D.): Wherein epidemic diseases were accounted to exposure to "bad air" or "night air" - Debunked by Robert Koch in his discovery that the anthrax bacterium causes anthrax (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1905/koch-bio.html).

• Preformationism (495 B.C. - ~1808 A.D.): Wherein organisms were said to develop from infinitely tiny versions of the adult - Debunked by John Dalton with his atomic theory of matter (http://science.jrank.org/pages/2451/Embryology-History-embryology-science.html).

• Spontaneous Generation (322 B.C. - 1859 A.D.) - Debunked by French microbiologist and chemist Louis Pasteur (http://www.bbc.co.uk/timelines/z9kj2hv#zqqnyrd).

• Maternal Impression (~200 A.D. - ~1800 A.D.): Wherein a mother's emotional state during pregnancy was thought to cause visible deformities in her child's appearance - Debunked by anatomist and physician William Hunter, along with his brother John Hunter (http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/04/the-odd-superstition-behind-birthmarks/389958/ and http://www.childrenshospital.org/centers-and-services/vascular-anomalies-center-program/research-and-innovation/history_-from-folklore-to-science).

• Lamarkism (1809 A.D. - 1900 A.D.): Wherein organisms were thought to pass on characteristics acquired within their lifespans - Debunked by Mendelian genetics (http://www.britannica.com/science/Lamarckism).

One might argue that these theories arose before the era of modern science and full development of the scientific method--"we are no longer so blinded as to make mistakes like these anymore."

How do such mistakes arise?

There is oversight (not looking in the right places or using the wrong equipment). There is extrapolated hypothesizing, accepted by the uninformed as fact. Scientists can easily tack hypothesizing into the "Conclusions" section of their papers (note the words "may", "indicate", "suggest", "if", "appear", "we feel", and other vagary). And there is blatant lying.

Detected, Modern Research Misconduct in USA: https://ori.hhs.gov/case_summary

Where, O where is the "I didn't know!" clause . . .

Gen. 2:15-17, "Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. The LORD God commanded the man, saying, 'From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.'”

• "Eden": Hebrew ‘ê-ḏen (Strong's 5731) - after the Fall in Gen. 3, the exact word reappears in: Gen. 4:16, where Cain "settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden."; Ezekiel 31:9-18, where Assyria is described as a tree excelling in beauty beyond all the trees in the garden of Eden; and Joel 2:3, where a great multitude is advancing on Zion, with the land before them appearing as Eden, while they leave behind them desolate wilderness.

• "cultivate": Hebrew lə-‘ā-ḇə-ḏāh (Strong's 5647) - only occurrence of exact word in Scripture. Compare to la-‘ă-ḇōḏ  in the post "Contradictory Creation account? (Gen. 2:5-7)".

• 1st "eat": Hebrew tō-ḵêl (Strong's 398) - Exact word occurs a total of 17 times in Scripture. Outside of Genesis the word is translated 9 out of 16 times as eating food for one's physical body. The 7 exceptions are: devouring/consuming fire in II Sam. 22:9, Job 31:12, Psalm 18:8 (which quotes II Sam. 22:9), and Psalm 50:3; "you shall eat of the fruit of your hands" in Psalm 128:2; "does not eat the bread of idleness" in Proverbs 31:27; "For wickedness burns like a fire; It consumes briars and thorns" in Isaiah 9:18.

[1/10/2016 update:

• 2nd "eat": Hebrew ṯō-ḵal (Strong's 398) - Out the 35 occurrences in Scripture, the word 29 times refers to eating food for physical nourishment. The 6 exceptions are: ". . . And dust you will eat all the days of your life;" (Gen. 3:14), ". . . the ashes [to] which the fire reduces the burnt offering . . ." (Lev. 6:10), and a devouring sword (Deut. 32:42, 2 Samuel 2:26, 2 Samuel 11:25, and Nahum 2:13).

• 3rd "eat": Hebrew ’ă-ḵā-lə-ḵā (Strong's 398) - Only occurrence of exact word in Scripture.

]

• "knowledge": Hebrew had-da-‘aṯ (Strong's 1847) - Seven total occurrences of exact word in Scripture. Outside of the 2 occurrences in Genesis 2, where it refers to the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the word is translated as: skill in craftmanship (I Kings 7:14), "what it means to know [God]" (Jer. 22:16), "'many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase.'" (Daniel 12:4), and knowledge of God and/or His laws (Hosea 4:6--had-da-‘aṯ appears twice).

• "good": Hebrew ṭō-wḇ (Strong's 2896) - Exact word occurs 271 times in Scripture. The only other time the word is associated with the same word for evil is in reference to little children with no knowledge of good or evil (Deut. 1:39).

•  "evil": Hebrew wā-rā‘ (Strong's 7451) - Exact word occurs 7 times in Scripture. Outside of the Genesis Fall of Man passage, the word is translated: Judah's fear that evil (or death) will befall his father Jacob if his youngest brother Benjamin does not return from Egypt (Gen. 44:34), the above Deut. 1:39 passage, and "Break the arm of the wicked and the evildoer . . ." (Psalm 10:15).

• "day": Hebrew bə-yō-wm (Strong's 3117) - Not necessarily a specific, 24-hour day. The word is also used to refer to a longer period of time, a recurring sabbath day, the 1st or another day of a month, "when", etc. See post "Just 31 verses until Creation climax--and then?".

• "die": Hebrew tā-mūṯ (Strong's 4191) - Exact word occurs 33 times in Scripture. The word predominantly refers to physical death meted out as punishment, except in: Job 12:2, "with you wisdom will die"; Isaiah 66:24, "For their worm will not die . . ."; Jer. 34:5, "You [King Zedekiah of Judah] will die in peace . . ."; and perhaps Zechariah 11:9, "What is to die, let it die . . ."

We see physical death all around us. How could mankind inherit death, and not inherit an understanding of what is good and what is evil? The two seem inseparable to me.

Contradictory Creation account? (Gen. 2:8-14)

Gen. 2:8-9, "The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed. Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

• "Eden": Hebrew bə·‘ê·ḏen (Strong's 5731) - First of 2 occurrences of the exact word in Scripture. The word appears again in Ezekiel 28:12-13, "'Son of man, take up a lamentation over the king of Tyre and say to him, "Thus says the Lord GOD, 'You had the seal of perfection, Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God; Every precious stone was your covering . . .'"'"

• "ground": Hebrew hā-’ă-ḏā-māh (Strong's 127) - Exact word first occurs in Gen. 1:25. This word is used to name: the same ground of "everything that creeps on the ground" (Gen. 1:25); the ground man cultivates (Gen. 2:5); the ground watered by the pre-rain mist (Gen. 2:6); the ground from which man was formed (Gen. 2:7); the ground cursed with toil, thorns, and thistles (Gen. 3:17-18)--whenever the word is associated with plants, it refers to the agriculturally tilled or cultivated ground surface.

Gen. 2:10-14, "Now a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four rivers. The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. The gold of that land is good; the bdellium and the onyx stone are there. The name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole land of Cush. The name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates."

• "Eden": Hebrew mê-‘ê-ḏen (Strong's 5731) - Only occurrence of exact word in Scripture.

• "Pishon": Hebrew pî-šō-wn (Strong's 6376) - Only occurrence of exact word in Scripture.

• "Havilah": Hebrew ha-ḥă-wî-lāh (Strong's 2341) - Only occurrence of exact word in Scripture. Variations on the root word reappear as the name of a son of Cush (Gen. 10:7 & I Chron. 1:9), a son of Joktan (Gen. 10:29 & I Chron. 1:23), and a boundary of the territory occupied by Ishmael's sons east of Egypt ("from Havilah to Shur"--Gen. 25:18) and the later territory of the Amalekites ("from Havilah as you go to Shur"--I Samuel 15:7).

• "Gihon": Hebrew gî-ḥō-wn (Strong's 1521) - Root word means, "a bursting forth". First occurrence of exact word in Genesis. The word later appears to name a spring near Jerusalem at the annointing of Solomon (I Kings 1:33), and during the reign of King Hezekiah (II Chron. 32:30)

• "Cush": Hebrew kūš (Strong's 3568) - First occurrence of this exact word. The word reappears as the name of the son of Ham (Noah's grandson), the king of Cush, and predominently as the land of Cush or Ethiopia (a real land in Esther 1:1 and 8:9).

• "Tigris": Hebrew ḥid-de-qel (Strong's 2313) - Only occurrence of exact word in Scripture. A variation on the root word reappears in Daniel 10:4 to name a large river in Persia.

• "Assyria": Hebrew ’aš-šūr (Strong's 804) - First occurrence of exact word. The word reappears to name the land of the city of Ninevah (Gen. 10:11), and later the country of Assyria which carried Northern Israel away into captivity and afflicted Judah.

•  "Euphrates": Hebrew p̄ə-rāṯ (Strong's 6578) - Only occurrence of exact word in Scripture. Variations on the root word later refer to: the river lying along the promised Eastern boundary of Israel (Joshua 1:4); and the river running by Carchemish, where King Josiah was wounded to death as he went out to engage Pharaoh Neco of Egypt who was coming up against the king of Assyria (II Kings 23:29 & II Chron. 35:20-23).