New Hypothesis Developed For The Staining Of Mars

For years scientists believed that water was required to rust the iron in the rocks and using water for speculation over the possibility of micro-life being on Mars. In a Simulation Laboratory in Denmark, conducted various experiments where quartz grains mixed with magnetite in a tumbler turn red in a few months as the surfaces wear down and oxygen atoms bind to the magnetite, forming reddish hematite.

Since hematite is deep red in color it doesn’t take much of it to color the dust red. This experiment doesn’t rule out water entirely just how the surface became red. However, this experiment has produced results for a younger surface. reports…

“That was a surprise to everybody,” said Jonathan Merrison of the Aarhus Mars Simulation Laboratory in Denmark…In fact, since the process can occur relatively quickly, it could be that the thin red layer of dust on Mars is somewhat new.”

“I think it means that Mars wasn’t always red,” Merrison said. “Before this work, I think most people in the field kind of thought the Martian surface was billions of years old and had always been red. This work seems to imply that it could be quite recent – millions of years instead of billions of years.”

Millions of years old? The  experiments, though had reduced the sand grains to dust in just seven short months, and they turned red quickly when magnetite was added. Even million of years old undermines the old solar system hypothesis because they is just a very small fraction of the assumed age. If Mars is billions of years old with the sand grains tumbling around for eons, why are we seeing the tail end of a rapid process? They don’t know, because they were not there when it happened. This hypothesis is so radical that it turns the previously evolutionary hypothesis upside down. The rapid processes scientists are now finding on Mars confirms the Bible which advocates creationism!


6 thoughts on “New Hypothesis Developed For The Staining Of Mars

  1. Second-hand” This work seems to imply that it could be quite recent – millions of years instead of billions of years.”

    So now at best you have reduced the age of the present surface configuration of Mars from billions to millions of years. Congratulations. You now have only three orders of magnitude, and the rest of the planet, left to go. But hold—

    Michael’s ghost writer: “Millions of years old? The experiments, though had reduced the sand grains to dust in just seven short months, and they turned red quickly when magnetite was added.”

    So now you’re claiming that Mars is only seven months old?? I think we have confirmed observations dating back decades, if not centuries, before that.

    Why not choose a more tempting target? The Earth’s magnetic field is decreasing at a rate that would have produced an enormous dipole moment more than 10,000 years ago. This rate is based upon undeniably genuine scientific data collected by actual geophysicists between 1835 and 1965. Therefore, the Earth must be less than 10,000 years old. Must be. Must be.

  2. And Venus is a couple of weeks old because it is still hot, Mercury a few years because it is so small and has to grow, the Moon a few hundred years because … oh well, why not.

    Quite fun, to think like that. For a few seconds, that is.

    Michael, why do you bother ? Do you really think your readers are that stupid ?


    Michael (September 8, 2009): “Proteins need left handed amino acids while carbohydrates and polymers need right-handed amino acids. If they get mixed up, not only are they useless but deadly as well.”

    “The expanding function of D-amino acids will continue to challenge the notion that D-amino acids have been largely irrelevant during the rise of the left-handed protein universe.” From “Expanding Functionality within the Looking-Glass Universe,” Science 325:1505-06. (Research article, “D-Amino Acids Govern Stationary Phase of Cell Wall Remodeling in Bacteria,” id, pp 1552-55.)

    Useless? Deadly??? That didn’t take long to crumble. But, as Michael complains, science keeps changing, while creationism remains comfortingly immutable.

  4. Eelco: “Michael, why do you bother ? Do you really think your readers are that stupid ?”

    Since you are not from the US, you need to know a little about how fundamentalist religious groups developed here.

    In the Middle Ages, the clergy were the best educated. Few others could even read or write.

    Into the 18thC and 19thC, anyone who aspired to a profession had only three choices: law, medicine, and clergy. In fact, students often entered the clergy in order to study natural science.[1] Even if a divinity student wished only to enter the ministry, courses in science
    were encouraged, in order yto impart a sense of awe for the handiwork of God. Thus, clerics commonly had a knowledge of, and a high regard for, the sciences.

    In the early 20thC, many Protestant denominations in the US split between liberal and conservative wings. The conservative wings tended to coalesce into fundamentalist groups independent of their parent denominations. Most of them came to espouse biblical literalism, which was then relatively new as a popular movement. Their leaders most often lacked the education of their parent denominations’ pastors, and most often had no formal training or qualifications at all—even in religion. It is these groups which oppose evolution—not the older denominations.

    The fundamentalists received succor in this regard from earlier movements in late 19thC England against the rising establishment of institutional science. Middle-class tradesmen and merchants had developed a keen interest in scientific knowledge; many popular “mechanical” magazines popularized new scientific discoveries and theories. But a feeling that developin\g scientific class was overly elitist repelled them, and a number of anti-science movements developed. This was the origin, for example, of the flat-earth movement, which denied the round Earth that everyone had accepted continuously since the ancient Greeks.[2]

    Although these groups had been secular in origina, many were co-opted for religious purposes—especially the anti-evolutiona and flat-earth crowds by biblical literalists. Their goal of denying the elitist theorieas of the more educated fit in with the “common sense” of the fundamentalist religious leaders.

    Therefore, the scientific ignorance of fundamentalist religious groups should not surprise anyone. In fact, because they explicitly rejected the doctrines on their more learned predecessors, these groups often consider ignorance a positive virtue.

    [1] As did Darwin. He started in medicine, but fainted at the sight of blood, and took up botany as a divinity student.

    [2] It is a modern-day myth that any educated men—including the Church—believed in a flat Earth during the Middle Ages.

  5. @Olorin:
    Many thanks for all the background reading ! I do spend enough time in the US, but obviously I’m not as immersed in US society to appreciate how things came about. Europe has gone through such phases as well, but certainly not in sync …

  6. The US liberal “mainline” denominations went through a process similar to the European churches, although not as complete. Membership decreased, and many scientists left the churches in the 1920s and ’30s. Two consequences: (a) The churches which accept evolution are weaker than they were. (b) Modern scientists are not as motivated to work out differences between science and religion.

    Until the 1960s, the fundamentalists mostly kept their anti-science views to themselves. And biology textbooks minimized their evolution content, to avoid controversy. However, when Sputnik energized science education, the textbooks gave the prominence to evolution that researchers give to it. This produced a backlash from the fundamentalists, who had become more powerful especially in the South.

    Europe has also seen the spread of more conservative groups recently. In Nederland particularly (ahem) fundamentals seem to exert enough sway over public TV that they could censor evolution out of Richard Attenborough’s BBC series on animal life around the world a couple years ago. In Poland, the Education Minister is avowedly creationist, and evolution is being removed from the curriculum there.

    So the US and Europe have witnessed some similar trends, although the outcomes sometimes differ.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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