Speculation On Origin Hinders Science

Back in the 1990’s, Dave McKay of NASA’s Johnson Space Center came out and said, he discovered a meteorite that landed on Earth from Mars which contained something that once lived. The meteorite called Allan Hills 84001 because it was discovered in 1984, in the Allan Hills of Antarctica. The claims by Dave McKay became a subject of controversy as other scientists examined the meteorite and a wealth of scientific papers concluded that non-biological processes could account for what they observed on the rock.

McKay had major hurdles to overcome, even if they discovered bacteria how are going to prove it was from Mars and not Earth? Also, questions arise like, how could organic chemicals have resisted vaporization for 38 million years in a total vacuum and then going through the Earth’s atmosphere? What’s the difference between alien bacteria, and earth’s bacteria? Not long after the published hyped story about the meteorite, the Clinton administration in turn, produced government funding targeted for “Astrobiology” and it’s been a waste a money ever since! Can one tell me what major discovery has improved science with more funding in “Astrobiology?”  

Recently in science daily, we read headlines that go like this…“Untangling Life’s Origins,” an indication it’s a huge mess, so they proposed a big bang for the protein! Well, it is believed among many evolutionists (despite all its problems) that the big band worked in space why not have it work in nature? Despite that idea which is not scientific, complexities of biological functions concerning molecules remain poorly understood among scientists! Shouldn’t evolutionists be waiting on that first before throwing out proposals about origins?

In another article, in space.com, we read…

“Could life have evolved on Mars Before Earth?”

“The discovery that ancient Mars could have supported microbes raises the tantalizing possibility that life may have evolved on the Red Planet before it took root on Earth. New observations by NASA’s Curiosity rover suggest that microbial life could have survived on Mars in the distant past, when the Red Planet was a warmer and wetter place, scientists announced…” 

But where is the microbial? None was discovered! Rather, the story was hyped for a reason and that reason is funding. It is not enough to just explore another planet, they have to come up with some sort of imaginary stories for marketing purposes. Scientists have their own bias, while some argue that science itself is supposed to be based on observations, that are repeated, and demonstrated. These stories about what Curiosity is finding on the plant hinders science!

Evolutionists spend a great deal of time creating study after study then coming up with conclusions that cannot be observed nor verified.  Here is a proposal, get rid of the funding for origins that create nothing more than stories, and shift that funding to where research needs it like studying complexities of biological functions concerning molecules which remain poorly understood! How about using that funding for finding better treatments for cancer? Surely we can find better use for that funding besides using it for hyped up stories about origins!

Space Exploration Concerning Empiricism and Speculation

Are we exploring space only because of curiosity of discovering ingredients which one can speculate about life being present sometime in the distance past or speculating about its origin?

There is still controversy brewing over a dry or wet Martian planet. Data from last year indicates that many of the lakes or gullies were likely caused by volcanoes. But on September 27th, Curiosity Rover had taken a stunning picture of conglomerate and gravel which appear like  flowing surface water from the planet’s past. NASA quickly rushed to publish this amazing photo, because of its significance which lead Science Magazine to declare: “Bingo!” 

“Billions of years ago, enough water flowed down from the rim of Gale crater to carry gravel to the middle of the crater floor—where the Curiosity rover found and imaged it 3 weeks ago, the NASA mission’s team members reported in a press conference today.”

“The broken face of a 15-centimeter-thick layer of rock—perhaps tilted into view by a nearby small impact—shows off bits of rock worn into pebbly roundness as they tumbled down a nearby slope in a torrent of water. Later, the gravel became encased in water-deposited minerals. Other rovers have found evidence of salty ground water or evanescent puddles of brine.”

“And orbital imaging has shown that the nearby slope in Gale was surely a so-called alluvial fan; the cone-shaped feature formed when sediment-laden water spilled down the crater wall. But Curiosity’s discovery will let researchers infer a great deal more about this particular ancient water on Mars.”

“Unfortunately, gravel laid down in torrential flows is about the worst sort of deposit to search for traces of ancient life. As demonstrated on Earth, the organic remains of long-ago life are far better preserved in the muddy deposits of a quiescent lake bottom. “

So there you have it, one picture of the surface of Mars discovered by Curiosity convinced science magazine that there was water present supposedly billions of years ago. On the next day, Science Daily published an article saying Mars is drier than expected…

“Preliminary data from the Curiosity Mars Science Laboratory, presented at the European Planetary Science Conference on 28 September, indicate that the Gale Crater landing site might be drier than expected.”

“The prediction based on previous measurements using the Mars Odyssey orbiter was that the soil in Gale Crater would be around 6% water. But the preliminary results from Curiosity show only a fraction of this,” said Maxim Mokrousov (Russian Space Research Institute), the lead designer of the instrument.”

The problem with water on Mars is, the substance cannot exist on the surface at this present moment because of  the low atmospheric pressure, one hundredth that on Earth. Phys.org reports that the water wouldn’t last because of atomic-level erosion from the solar wind called sputtering…“In this process, atoms are knocked away from the atmosphere due to impacts from energetic particles” concluding that the planet was never wet or warm.  

In other space exploration news,  researchers have obtained enough data that discovers what happens during Titan’s year. They can now observe seasonal changes occurring on the moon. Researchers are finding these changing are having more of an impact on Titan than previously thought.

In  science daily

“Explains Dr Coustenis, “As with Earth, conditions on Titan change with its seasons. We can see differences in atmospheric temperatures, chemical composition and circulation patterns, especially at the poles. For example, hydrocarbon lakes form around the north polar region during winter due to colder temperatures and condensation.”

Interesting enough, The article mentioned the continuous ethane production from solar radiation but did not get into the time problem this creates. Over the course of 4.5 billion years, an accumulation of half a kilometer or more of liquid ethane was expected by scientists in a global ocean.  Even the Huygens probe was designed to float on that ocean which was falsified by direct observations. The lakes on Titan are appearing and disappearing  which can only mean that the lakes are shallow and the liquid hydrocarbons in them are moving around! This is hardly an indication of the moon being billions of years old, which is why the prediction of a global ocean consisting of ethane failed to meet expectations rather it confirms more of a youthful moon!

Another indication is the fact that Titan, the largest moon which contains the greatest gravitational attraction, has very few craters (three to five) after all that time. One has to ask whether it is credible that these processes have been going on for billions of years.

Creationists can still enjoy space exploration which has been a valuable tool in learning about our solar system confirming a Creator but one has to keep mind the difference of keep in mind the difference between between empiricism and speculation, between discovery and explanation!

Curiosity’s Amazing Exploration of Mars

Last month entailed one of the most interesting adventures in space exploration, where the landing became a hot topic. For the first time, a very heavy spacecraft (about 2 tons) was going to land on the planet Mars. It was quite the challenge considering that Mars contains a thin atmosphere.

After its 7 minute solo landing on August 6, 2012, Curiosity’s orbiting partner transmitted the first dusty thumbnail images the rover had taken with her rear hazmat cameras. Two hours later, during the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter’s second flyover, high-resolution images came down showing rocks and the rim of Gale Crater, where the rover landed at a site named after the late science fiction writer Ray Bradbury.

Curiousity’s mission is to detect conditions for habitability. A quest that man has been imaging about since my grandma’s young years. Of course it went from a full-scale invasion (world of the worlds on radio) to looking for microorganisms to just ingredients which astrobiology would consider natural creators for life from the past despite the fact that never observed non-living chemicals creating life in the present.

Was there water on Mars, some point in its history? Well as the data has come in, the clays on Mars are not from water, but rather they were formed by volcanoes. Astrobiology magazine writes…

“Alain Meunier of the University of Poitiers in France has found that some Mars minerals from the Noachian period are a good chemical match to clays at the Mururoa Atoll in French Polynesia, which formed from cooling of water-rich lava.” 

“What’s more, these ancient Martian clays can be up to hundreds of metres thick, which is more likely to be associated with lava flows than soil interacting with water.” 

“Such a result would imply that early Mars may not have been as habitable as previously thought at the time when Earth’s life was taking hold,” wrote Brian Hynek of the University of Colorado in Boulder, who was not involved in the new work, in an accompanying commentary.”

John Grotzinger (in live science), who is the project scientist for the Curiosity rover is still hoping to discover water in the Gale Crater.  He tries to rationalize history as a guide for optimism, so he concludes that scientists expect to find water-lain deposits in Gusev Crater where the earlier Spirit rover landed.  Which is strange, because Spirit only detected volcanic ash with some windblown dust back in August of 2004.

Even the rocks indicate otherwise because they would have degraded in the presence of standing water along with of showing no signs of having been transported by water through Ma’adim Vallis, the valley that appears from orbit like a flood channel leading into the crater.  But yet even with this emerging picture of a salt-laden, often corroded planet there was still hope that it had standing water early in its history.

Keep in mind, this is an amazing exploration of Mars even by spirit back in 2004, but the mission is not to study Mars per say which it should be, but rather trying to find data that might give them ideas for life like discovering water. Curiosity is the best spacecraft ever made with remarkable intelligent engineering by highly skilled people.

Scientific Discoveries Disagrees With Evolutionary Explanations

In recent weeks, there has been quite a number of reports in many different areas in science which amplify the importance concerning the philosophy of science with  real-world examples.  Scientists help design very expensive but amazing tools for observation.  When these amazing tools observe things that defy evolutionary explanations, how far will scientists alter a theory to avoid these real-world falsifications?

Hubble has been one out of many amazing tools ever to be designed, recently scientists have tweaked it to look even farther into the universe where some claim like science daily will give more insights on how the universe supposedly evolved.

“The research is published Jan. 27, 2011, in the journal Nature. The dim object is a compact galaxy made of blue stars that existed only 480 million years after the Big Bang. It is tiny. Over one hundred such mini galaxies would be needed to make up our Milky Way.”

While it is quite an accomplishment with this thrilling discovery, their model did not predict finding just one.  Are they going to alter the big bang-theory so it doesn’t appear falsified? What does discovering one galaxy so close to what scientists consider the beginning, mean? On astronomer describes the significance, “This is an astonishing increase in such a short period, happening in just 1% of the age of the universe.”

Now the Big Bang theory tells us a story about earlier stars that were made of pure hydrogen which are called, Population III stars (that haven’t been observed)  before heavy elements had been cooked inside the first generation stars, because only hydrogen and helium atoms are supposed to have emerged from the particle soup of the big bang.

Will scientists and the public get to see the very first stars? In New Scientist which asks this probing question, gives an answer…”The earliest galaxies may be too distant and dim to see with JWST.” It’s almost like trying to calculate the age of a black hole where time stands still so it’s left up to one’s imagination. Perhaps this is a good thing for evolutionary theory considering that many predictions that have been falsified through real-world observations. As for creationism, we tend to go with the real-world observations as evidence.

Mars has been another interesting discovery. To the surprise of scientists, sand dunes on the surface of Mars can change very quickly. This presents an interesting problem for old age theorists who believe Mars is like 4.5 billion years old. THEMIS infrared camera used on Mars Odyssey orbiter which is another amazingly designed tool, has been studying the dust on Mars. Why isn’t Mars covered with a kilometer of dust which should have happened if Mars was billions of years old.

Real-time observations show the layer to be thin. This is when imagination comes into play. “Well, maybe throughout most of its history, Mars has had too thin an atmosphere to make dust or initiate saltation or wind abrasion,” Mars seems to have global dust storms that occasionally obscure the entire surface of the planet with dust as fine as talcum powder.  Calculations show that 100 meters of dust should blanket the planet in 4.5 billion years given current estimated dust creation rates.

To explain this anomaly to make things right again (altering unobserved evidence to fit the old-age theory), Christensen used his imagination by suggesting the atmosphere was cycling in and out, which actively produced dust only 2% of the time.  The story sounds great for a screenplay that entails science fiction, but not in the real-world. Always remember that evolutionary explanations are an entirely different enterprise than what is found in scientific discovery which evidence leads to the confirmation of God’s Word!