|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 03/28/2004 : 04:51:20
|
quote:
In response, many NASA-funded scientists are ecstatic. In short, they assume the presence of water is a necessary condition for life. And since a great many of them also assume life evolved on earth, they believe it must have evolved on other planets as well. That means they view the discovery of the past-presence of water on Mars as a twofer. First, it's a big return on the billions of dollars poured into space research. Second, it brings believers in evolution one step closer to refueling the weakening presumption of this theory on earth.
The question is "Will they find any signs of past or present life on Mars? If they do, what will it really mean?"
By now it should be painfully obvious that for many, space exploration and the search for life on other planets reflect not only man's quest for adventure and knowledge but the search for why we are here and how we arrived. In other words, discover life on Mars; prove evolution; disprove God.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37774
I think it's pretty predictable that the sillier and noisier among the faithful would define the Mars exploration into a sort of hunt to deny the deity. So, the above screed should come as little suprise.
But, I wonder why. Finding life on Mars would certainly add to the ToE, but it in no way refutes the existance of God(s).
And on the subject of finding evidence of life, it seems that trace methane has been discovered.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_medical/story.jsp?story=505454
"Proof only counts in Mathmatics and Whiskey." Wish I'd thought that one up.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
 Posted - 03/28/2004 : 07:50:19 [Permalink]
|
Geez, her article starts out quite nicely - lot of night-sky-spectator stuff. But then with the NASA/Mars/evolution tie-in she makes, she careens right into the abyss of ignorance with the old 'religion lead-weight' around her neck.
I found her article very insulting to the 'true science' of discovery, and especially to the hard work by thousands of people in NASA with this incredibly successful mission.
I guess when one plays all the time with tiddle-winks, you end up with a tiddle-wink view of the world.
Snip from her article:
quote:
The bottom line is life cannot rise from inanimate material. No one needs a Ph.D. to know that a rock sitting in a pool of salt water will not produce life – no matter how many times lightening strikes.
Ph.D. scientist, my ass. Oh by the way, I'm the King of England.
Here's her site....
http://christianity.com/scienceministries/
|
"We are all connected; to each other biologically, to the earth chemically, to the rest of the universe atomically."
"So you're made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?"
-Neil DeGrasse Tyson |
 |
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2004 : 08:16:56 [Permalink]
|
My reaction when I read stuff like Dr. Hollowell's column: What are True Believers so afraid of?
It seems that science, knowledge, and discovery frighten them and threaten their world view. Why do they insist on turning back the clock to a time when we knew LESS about our world?
If I'm allowed a moment of snottiness, I think that world view is pathetic and weak.  |
|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2004 : 08:39:04 [Permalink]
|
Just a second thought here on another goof-ball convoluted snip from her article. This one, I might add, is just one looney-tune religious perspective....
quote:
In other words, discover life on Mars; prove evolution; disprove God.
(well on second thought, if that's what it takes for her, all the good for it. Actually, didn't the pope 'prove' evolution a couple of years ago? Ha!)
Here's another looney-tune religious perspective, whether it's a real quote or not...
You know how long those waits in the grocery stores checkouts can be, and store's insistance to put out tabloids for sale right there under your nose. There I was waiting and waiting - I couldn't help but to scan those dumb headlines. This one popped out at me, so I grab it for a good chuckle. "Billy Graham believes in ET. Says they look a lot like us, and they believe in Jesus Christ, too".
What a riot!  |
"We are all connected; to each other biologically, to the earth chemically, to the rest of the universe atomically."
"So you're made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?"
-Neil DeGrasse Tyson |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2004 : 09:11:15 [Permalink]
|
Renae wrote:quote:
My reaction when I read stuff like Dr. Hollowell's column: What are True Believers so afraid of?
This past Christmas, my wife gave me The Evolution Boxed Set. The first DVD, "Darwin's Dangerous Idea," explains that people back in Darwin's day thought this: if a natural, undirected process like evolution can create something as complex as an eye, then perhaps it could have created people, too, in which case the Bible is wrong when it says that people were specially created (in God's image), and maybe it's entirely wrong about God, also.
Of course, the theory of evolution neither requires God nor explicitly excludes God (and in fact there are devoutly religious evolutionary biologists), so any ideas that it does the latter are wholly fictional. The thing I find strange is that neither the theory of gravitation or the laws of thermodynamics require or exclude God, but we don't find fundamentalists arguing that they (and numerous other aspects of science) shouldn't be taught in schools. Instead, they're fixated on just one theory, and its disagreement with a 3,200-year-old Jewish fable. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2004 : 10:17:15 [Permalink]
|
Ramblings..
We don't find fundies argueing against or excluding gravitational theory or laws of thermodynamics or any other science because they fail at understanding the big picture of our world/universe modern science is giving us. Although, it wouldn't be hard to imagine some goof-ball religion denying most anything. One could say the San Diego suicide cult from 10 years ago denied the accepted science of today - no evidence of ET's, yet.
For those with a particular religious bend, they'll feel threatened by the ToE. To them in varing degrees, it does deny the magic skyman. As it would I also imagine for the mythological Greeks gods, early Epyptians god, and the thousands of others.
As far as denying other sciences, I guess one won't find any that practice "prayer healings only" to be enrolled in medical schools. In that arena of (medical) science denial, occasionally stories pop up in the news in a most unfortunate manner - practicing parents are charge, rightfully so, with the death of their child. With denying ToE, or anything science offers up, the non-believer simply plays a mind-game with himself, all during which nature quitely continues on (all with or without one's beliefs ).
Course there's the Flat Earth Society, the few that they are, if they're actually real.
I think it's all based on a religious belief that the entire universe is a gift from god for us, the scripture malarkey "sez so". Some feel incredibly threatened with some discoveries of modern science. As you know, religion can weave a powerful psychological grip inside of people, taps into their survival instincts, perhaps. |
"We are all connected; to each other biologically, to the earth chemically, to the rest of the universe atomically."
"So you're made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?"
-Neil DeGrasse Tyson |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2004 : 11:18:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
DaveW:
Of course, the theory of evolution neither requires God nor explicitly excludes God (and in fact there are devoutly religious evolutionary biologists), so any ideas that it does the latter are wholly fictional. The thing I find strange is that neither the theory of gravitation or the laws of thermodynamics require or exclude God, but we don't find fundamentalists arguing that they (and numerous other aspects of science) shouldn't be taught in schools. Instead, they're fixated on just one theory, and its disagreement with a 3,200-year-old Jewish fable.
A rant: quote:
The White Stripes:
And I said it once before
But it bears repeating
I mentioned this inconsistency to doomar in another thread. It really is odd that the literalists pretty much accept all science not in conflict with their beliefs. You would think that if they could find so much fault with one theory, they would be suspicious of every theory. If the theory of evolution is such a dismal failure, as they suggest, supported by so much flawed evidence, as they suggest, how can they trust any science? How can they say that geology, biology, cosmology, physical anthropology and physics, to name a few of the sciences that support evolution, can be so wrong in that support while accepting those areas of research by the very same disciplines that do not conflict with their literalist view? Since the methodology is basically the same, shouldn't all science be suspect in their view?
As for the method, I am waiting for a scientific creationist to publish for peer review. If their evidence is so damaging to an excepted scientific theory, why not use proper channels to take the theory down? That is a sure fire way for any scientist to make a name for himself. Instead, these "scientists" prefer to voice their objections in in-house publications that essentially preach to the choir. Kent Hovind has all the answers and yet his ultimate cowardice is obvious when you consider that he has never written even one paper on the subject of evolution and submitted it for peer review by other scientists. The same goes for Duan Gish, Henry Morris and all the other pseudo scientists who are so loved by biblical literalists.
Their "science" fails on another level. They have pledged themselves to a conclusion no matter what the evidence says. If the evidence supports evolution, it is wrong. No matter how well supported the evidence is, it is wrong. That is not science. Their theory of catastraphism is not science. It might be if they subjected the theory to peer review. Could it be that they know that normal channels for evaluating their research might result in damage to their hypothesis? Sure they do! Other scientists have to take that risk or be subjected to the kind of ridicule creation scientists routinely get for publishing in the popular press or in-house to avoid criticism. Just how much confidence these "scientists" have in their hypothesis should be plain to see. Thing is, they are preachers, not scientists...
One other thing. If they actually could prove that evolution doesn't happen (a pursuit that has gone on for over a century without one iota of success, except in their own minds) why on earth do they think that creationism would be the default explanation for the diversity of life on our planet? A theory must be supported by evidence, and so far the creationists have been unwilling to present any evidence for their hypothesis beyond science bashing and speculation that is so tortured it should make even the most hardend creationist blush. (The receding flood depositing the remains of animals in geological columns based on the weight of the animal which just happens to correspond to what evolutionary theory would predict is one of their hypothesis.) That does not make for a new theory...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2004 : 11:47:10 [Permalink]
|
The thing about it is, I think, is that it's beginning to look like there just might be life currently on Mars. The methane, if there is no mistake and methane indeed it is, is a pretty good sign. And somehow this is being interperated as being an assult upon the existance of God and the science looking for it is wicked and evil.
I don't understand why, as the science doesn't care whether there is a deity or not. The science is only interested in it's study.
I am just bloody-minded enough to be tentivly hoping for, and looking forward to the actual discovery of a previously unknown microb or two. If this article and some others are any example, there will be knots in hystericaly religious knickers that not even a master boatswain's mate could untie. The pointless retoric will be amazing.
Indeed, I've already heard (from a friend, and yes, I have a few) that if any life is found, it will be from contamination from Earth brought to Mars by various probs and landers. It's a thought, but thus far, not much of an argument.
Would any of our microscopic life, so well suited to living here, be able to survive on Mars? With virtually no time to evolve into it? I don't know. I do know that we've got some pretty tough bugs. And if some of those bugs are tough enough to gain a foothold there, would they have had enough time to multiply into numbers that would produce enough methane to be readable? Again, damned if I know.
I do know that, from the above whisper, we are apt to be vastly entertained by fundies in denial, if life of some sort is actually found and confirmed.
"The Boll Weavel am a little black bug,
From Mexico, they say.
He come all the way to Texas,
Jus' lookin' for a place to stay....." 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2004 : 13:51:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Would any of our microscopic life, so well suited to living here, be able to survive on Mars?
First it will have to survive the hard vacuum of space and solar radiation on it's journey there. When finally at Mars, the atmospheric pressure is 0,5% of Earth at sea level.
Anything making it there will be freeze-dried.
Anything living on Mars has to be below the permafrost.
quote:
I do know that, from the above whisper, we are apt to be vastly entertained by fundies in denial, if life of some sort is actually found and confirmed.
Hope springs eternally...  |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
