Thursday, 14 March 2013

'Water on Mars therefore life' hype-AGAIN!!!

Another load of mind numbing taxpayer funded propaganda about water on Mars was being puffed across the media yesterday. Read one account of it here.


>>The water that may once have flowed freely on the surface of Mars is likely to have been pure enough for humans to drink, Nasa scientists have revealed.

Samples of rocks heated to nearly 1100C revealed clay minerals which indicate that water once flowed freely in the ancient stream bed from which they were taken.

The revelations are the clearest indicator yet that life could once have existed on Mars, as flowing water is likely to have created conditions ideal for microbial life.

John Grotzinger, a lead scientist on the £1.7 billion Curiosity rover, said: “We have found a habitable environment that is so benign and supportive of life, that probably if this water was around and you had been there, you would have been able to drink it”.

As well as clay, the heated rocks revealed elements of sulphur, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, phosphorus

and carbon – all key chemicals for sustaining life as we know it.

Michael Meyer, a lead scientist on Nasa's Mars Exploration Program, said: “A fundamental question for this mission is whether Mars could have supported a habitable environment… From what we know now, the answer is yes.”<<


Yawn. Repeat a lie often enough with sufficient authority and confidence and they will believe it. However big.

We have known for decades that there was probably water once on Mars and might even be some frozen water there now.  We have known for even longer that water plus carbon dioxide, ammonia, sulphur, phosphorus etc do not demonstrate the slightest capacity to give rise to life spontaneously.  

This is typical evolutionist drip, drip, drip propaganda to persuade us that life emerges spontaneously in the presence of liquid water. The only evidence for that is the axiomatic materialist assumption that creation cannot be considered as a possibility, leaving spontaneous abiogenesis the only alternative, therefore  axiomatically true given the assumption of atheistic materialism.

Despite the evidence, the materialist community MUST have their life from non life. And as they know it can't have happened on earth, they are trying to shift the problem elsewhere and turn speculation into fact by constant repetition. Its a well tried strategy from Uncle Charley onwards with his 'I have no difficulty in imagining...could have...might have...may have...must have...DID! Go on, prove it couldn't have happened!' . They know that plant and animal species breed true within narrow cyclical genomic limits and don't turn into different species either today or during recorded human history. This is the opposite of what Darwinism requires, but evolution is axiomatically true and foundational to secular materialist philosophy. It can't be questioned. So when facts don't fit the conclusion, rather than change the conclusion to fit the facts they re-locate the evidence in the distant past, where it can't be directly investigated or falsified. They then insist that sceptics either prove a negative in an area of time located beyond the possibility of direct investigation, or capitulate and agree with their speculation.

However, regarding the emergence of life from non life (an issue Darwin studiously avoided apart from an aside in a letter to Huxley in which he said something about a 'warm little pond with phosphates and electricity'), given what we know from directly observed and repeatable science about the specified complexity of the processes that go into making a living cell, I think we can confidently assert that particular negative has been satisfactorily proved. I repeat, the only possible grounds we have for assuming that the first living thing emerged spontaneously from water and solutes is the prior axiomatic rejection of a Designer and Creator.

The smallest living cell contains, amongst much else, hundreds of proteins working perfectly together in concert. Science's attempts to demonstrate even one strand of small protein arising without fully functioning DNA and cellular machinery have lead to complete dead ends, and very early on in the process. Of course we hear nothing about the multiple road blocks and terminally insoluble problems for undesigned origin of life hypotheses. The 'We found water on Mars, therefore we assume there was life there in the past, therefore spontaneous emergence of life is a FACT!' hype is repeated continually as if it was anything more than propaganda and bluster. Perhaps the most remarkable thing in all this reportage is that no sceptical voice is ever heard in the mainstream media.

The mathematics show that even if we were to assume an abundant supply of suitable laevo amino acids (which is impossible without previously existing and highly complex biological structures to produce them) and assume they would form peptide bonds spontaneously and efficiently (which we know they don't) the chances of ever producing a single strand of correctly structured protein would be so astronomically small as to be effectively zero. And that's even if we allow billions of years. And even if it did arise, what will that single strand of, say, collagen do in a sea of junk molecules produced by the same random process before it breaks down entropically? Then there's the rest of the cell to consider. And BTW what would this putative self assembled first life form eat? There aren't any plants yet.

The actual science shows that life could not have emerged spontaneously under any imaginable conditions. Yet it must have done, or else we would have a Creator. But if we had a Creator, then we would also have a Lawgiver and a Judge. And so we would need a Saviour. And we would have to humble ourselves and repent of our sins, including our economic and sexual sins, sins of pride, and our culpable unbelief in The One whom God has sent. As the Apostle Paul said to the pagan philosophers in Athens (Acts chapter 17)

 'The times of ignorance, God overlooked, but He now commands all men everywhere to repent.'

John's Gospel (chapter 1 verses 1-3) informs us that Christ was in the beginning with God and all things were made through Him. It also informs us (chapter 3 verse 18-19) that although the light came into the world, men preferred darkness to light because their deeds were evil, so they refused to come to the light.

Christ is the light of the world. There is bags more evidence for His miraculous life and resurrection than there is for the emergence of life spontaneously.


No comments:

Post a Comment

feel free to comment, good manners and lucidity are appreciated.