Life on Mars????

[Creationist2004]

In my science lesson, my teacher has told us that there has been a recent finding of bacteria like structures on Mars, and that methane has been found in it's atmosphere.

Since Methane cannot last in the atmosphere for long without being replaced by living organisms, does this mean that there is life on Mars?

And if so, is this proof of the big bang?

Sorry if this is a nuisance, but being a creationist this worried me.

 

[troodon]

I'm not an expert in this area but....

In my science lesson, my teacher has told us that there has been a recent finding of bacteria like structures on Mars

I assume he's talking about that Mars rock thing from a few years ago. I'm not sure how much credance people give that discovery anymore.

and that methane has been found in it's atmosphere.

Yes.

Since Methane cannot last in the atmosphere for long without being replaced by living organisms, does this mean that there is life on Mars?

It could be caused by vulcanism as well, but Mars is supposed to be vulcanically dead. We really have to wait for more data before we start making real conclusions.

And if so, is this proof of the big bang?

Life on Mars has nothing to do with the big bang. It could show us that life really can develope abiotically, but the big bang is a whole other issue. (Just to make sure you're aware, there is nothing about the big bang that disagrees with Christianity).

Sorry if this is a nuisance, but being a creationist this worried me.

You should be more worried about being a Creationist than about scientific findings.

 

[Ark-Guy]

troodon
It could be caused by vulcanism as well, but Mars is supposed to be vulcanically dead. We really have to wait for more data before we start making real conclusions

Its possible that this vulcanism is occuring under the surface of mars and the gas is escaping to the atmosphere

 

[Bushido216]

It could be caused by vulcanism as well, but Mars is supposed to be vulcanically dead. We really have to wait for more data before we start making real conclusions.

Those **** dirty Vulcans! We'll get them for screwing with our martian volcanoes!

 

[pgp_protector]

It is now accepted that there IS Now Life on Mars



The thing is



We brought it there, they say the probes we sent may not of all been steralized, and there is now some cross comination going on.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

It is now accepted that there IS Now Life on Mars



The thing is



We brought it there, they say the probes we sent may not of all been steralized, and there is now some cross comination going on.

No it is NOT accepted. There probably is not life on Mars.
There is NO chance there was cross contamination.

 

[ThePhoenix]

Cross contamination? Don't make me laugh. Vacuum is a steralizer that works 100% of the time. The cell wall breaks as the cell boils. The boiling point is not a constant.

 

[Ark-Guy]

It is now accepted that there IS Now Life on Mars

It is???????

Now that's news to me and the world.

 

[pgp_protector]

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-01zg1.html

John Rummel explains the heat sterilization process; "The Viking missions were baked in an oven for over 50 hours at temperatures over 115 degrees Celsius." That translates to 239 degrees Fahrenheit, or slightly hotter than boiling water.

Engineers did the best they could at that time. They figured that the extreme heat and chemicals were enough to kill anything that might be alive on its surface. Since then, scientists have learned that some microorganisms thrive in boiling water.

What about the inside, the sealed surfaces? Karen Buxbaum, a supervisor of the Jet Propulsion Lab's (JPL) Planetary Protection Technologies Group says, "There is certainly a possibility that Viking might have had spores on the spacecraft that then ended up in the vicinity of the landers."

The U.S. isn't the only country to send probes to Mars and the other planets. The former Soviet Union and Russia have sent several probes to the red planet. Some were successful, some not. There is no way to confirm that the Russian probes went through any sort of decontamination before launch.

 

[gluadys]

Sorry if this is a nuisance, but being a creationist this worried me.

A good reason to stop being a creationist. If a Christian fears finding out about something God made in the universe because it might upset their notions about God, it is an indication that s/he has incorrect notions about God.

Faith and fear are incompatible. God is a God of truth and no truth of science can be hostile to God or to those who put their faith in the God of truth. There is nothing we can possibly find in God's universe which should cause worry to one of God's children.

 

[AlaskanDan]

troodon stated:
(Just to make sure you're aware, there is nothing about the big bang that disagrees with Christianity).

There is only one big bang in christianity, and that is the second coming of Christ. The bible talks about a six day creation On the third day God created the plants, etc. But it wasnt until the fourth day that God created the sun and the stars. This is a literal 6 day creation, there is nothing concerning the Big Bang in creation. The earth isnt millions of years old, it is mearly thousands of years old. People will try to say that it isnt...but if you believe the bible is the written word of God and the truth, then you must believe that God created the world...not mere chance.

Evolution in schools is presented as fact, well, it isnt fact, it is a mere theory. A theory that believes that we are mere animals and should do everything in our power to fulfill our own lust. We are not animals, we are created in God's image.

You know...Hitler was athiest, he thought he was doing the world a favor and eliminating what he thought was the most primative race, the Jews (God's chosen people). Hitler was a BAD man!

 

[notto]

Evolution in schools is presented as fact, well, it isnt fact, it is a mere theory. A theory that believes that we are mere animals and should do everything in our power to fulfill our own lust. We are not animals, we are created in God's image.

Can you point us to a biology book that says the above? I haven't seen any science books discuss anything about fulfilling our own lust. You are sounding like Jack Chick. You are misrepresenting the theory of evolution and appealing to emotion. The theory of evolution says nothing about God. It describes and explains why we see the diversity of animal life on this planet and explains the evidence we find when we study God's creation.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory, just as gravity or germ theory of disease. We observe the act (fact) and the theory describes the why of that act.

 

[notto]

You know...Hitler was athiest, he thought he was doing the world a favor and eliminating what he thought was the most primative race, the Jews (God's chosen people). Hitler was a BAD man!

They jury is still out on this one. I would suggest that you don't go down that road. Evolution is not equal to atheism and to suggest that it does is misrepresenting the theory and those that accept it. Regardless of that, Hitlers personal views have no bearing on the validity of the scientific theory of evolution.

“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”

[font=Bookman Old Style, Arial]( Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Ralph Mannheim, ed., New York: Mariner Books, 1999, p. 65. )
[/font]

[font=Bookman Old Style, Arial]
[/font]

 

[AlaskanDan]

Evolution is not able to hold any validity, it is such an aweful theory. There has been no evidence of macroevolution (which i assume is the deal here), only mere micro evolution. If you examine the fossil record, you will come to the conclusion that the fossil record is "incomplete." Even if the fossil record is incomplete...wouldnt there be evidence found that there was a transition from an Ape to a Human? I'm sorry about Lucy, and the neandrathal, they have all been proven wrong, yet they still appear in the text books that poison the minds of children. There is no doubt that there are many breeds of dogs in the world...but never has there been such evidence of a dog ever producing anything other than a dog.

Even if there was some freak mutation, the theory of natural selection is "survival of the most (or sufficiently) fit." There is no way that a whale could have just walked back into the water and over...millions of years...developed fins and a fluke to swim. The cow-like animal..as i have always been taught, wouldnt be fit at all to live that way, and would have been eaten and destroyed because they were not fit for their environment.

To teach evolution is poison in the mind of man! God created the earth in 6 days. Satan created evolution to aide in the fall of man.

 

[notto]

I'm sorry about Lucy, and the neandrathal, they have all been proven wrong, yet they still appear in the text books that poison the minds of children.

LOL!

You need to read something other than Kent Hovind. You really should apply the same scrutiny to his evidence and statements as you seem to be applying to the work of thousands of scientists (many of the Christian) who have their work reviewed, corrected, and validated.

Evolution is as much a valid scientific theory as anything in science.

 

[AlaskanDan]

You still have no evidence to prove your theory. All this carbon dating is blogna, carbon dating is based on the atmosphere we have today, even if that mammoth was 20k years old, so the dating says, i highly doubt the atmosphere was the same as it is today.

 

[notto]

You still have no evidence to prove your theory. All this carbon dating is blogna, carbon dating is based on the atmosphere we have today, even if that mammoth was 20k years old, so the dating says, i highly doubt the atmosphere was the same as it is today.

And carbon dating doesn't rely on the atmosphere being the same. The dating methods can be corrected and adjusted in accordance with dating and ratios of samples of known age (and this is currently done). Scientists don't work under the assumption that the atmosphere was the same. The sample things of a known age to understand what the atmosphere was like and adjust the dating methods appropriately.

These dating methods are reliable, can be tested one against the other, and match results that are found when measuring things of a known age. They can also be checked against other dating methods and they match those as well.

Don't try to discredit something without studying the detail. You are uninformed about the reality of many of the things you are discussing.

 

[AlaskanDan]

Once again, before i go to bed, i must add...evolution is a theory, you stated it yourself, such a theory should not be used in science until it is proven. Science is not factual until proven unfactual, it is unfactual until proven factual. Evolution is a creative theory, but it is yet a theory. Goodnight fellow believer in the risen Lord Jesus Christ? The only way to eternal life is through Him, If you do not believe Jesus Christ is your only way to Heaven, i recomend you reevaluate your life and accept the Lord as your personal savior. I know where I am going after I die...do you?

 

[rkonfire]

Notto, if you think any type of dating explains millions of years old, you are mistaken. "The dating methods can be corrected and adjusted in accordance with dating and ratios of samples of known age (and this is currently done)."
Known age? So in other words, if calculations don't agree with "known ages", then they're thrown out? But if you don't have a "known age" yet for something, then the calculations are kept? Yet these calculations always match up with each other? You can't just keep want you want and throw away what you don't want. If these dating methods ALWAYS worked, then they would go RIGHT ALONG HAND with your so called "known ages." Also, how're "known ages" proven?

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Notto, if you think any type of dating explains millions of years old, you are mistaken. "The dating methods can be corrected and adjusted in accordance with dating and ratios of samples of known age (and this is currently done)."
Known age? So in other words, if calculations don't agree with "known ages", then they're thrown out? But if you don't have a "known age" yet for something, then the calculations are kept? Yet these calculations always match up with each other? You can't just keep want you want and throw away what you don't want. If these dating methods ALWAYS worked, then they would go RIGHT ALONG HAND with your so called "known ages." Also, how're "known ages" proven?

The above post is a lie.
This is the old conspiracy theory ruse.