Key assumptions about habitability on Mars have fallen, but astrobiologists try to keep hope alive.
By gully, no water there. When first seen, gullies on the walls of certain Martian craters were announced as strong evidence for water. Even though water cannot exist on Mars’ surface now, scientists felt subsurface water could be temporarily liberated to flow down the crater walls and carve the gullies. Now, Science Daily says, “Mars gullies likely not formed by liquid water.” (…) Since life needs water, this undermines hopes for finding life at these sites. While the findings do not rule out water, scientists think it would consist of “small amounts of brine” incapable of forming the gullies.
Forced sterilization. Astrobiologists don’t expect life to be found on the surface of Mars due to the planet’s high radiation exposure (9/05/14). Instead, they hope to find it deep underground. Now, Space.com asks, “Did Meteorite Impacts Sterilize Subsurface Mars Life?” Discovery News writer Ian O’Neill has bad news:
The sites of meteorite impacts on Mars are often considered to be good places to look for life. After all, it’s most likely that if any trace of life (past or present) ever took hold on the Red Planet, it would most likely be preserved under the bedrock of Mars’ harsh surface. Should there be a recent impact, could we search the debris to seek-out this recently excavated pristine rock for life?
Alas, in new research, this kind of impact crater search could be a fool’s errand; the energy of the impact likely sterilized any material we’d consider organic and related to life.
Notice he says it would not have just killed life; it would have destroyed the organic material “related” to life. He ends without providing any empirical evidence for keeping hope alive. He just says, “we can’t assume that every crater will be a Mars biology goldmine.”
[Gotta keep the scam going!]
Astrobiology propaganda continues. Live Science takes a look at 20 years of research into the famous Allen Hills meteorite ALH 84001 that caused a big media stir in 1996. At a NASApress conference, David McKay and colleagues presented tantalizing hints of fossilized organisms inside the rock. The photo in Live Science’s story showing a worm-like structure was replicated around the world. Shortly afterward, a new science was born: “astrobiology.” NASAformed its Astrobiology Institute that continues to this day funding projects to look for life beyond the earth. “Without this paper, the field of astrobiology may never have come to exist,” comments Carnegie Institute astrobiologist Andrew Steele. This could be interpreted that without the paper, he wouldn’t have a job.
In retrospect, though, Timothy Swindle of the University of Arizona finds that skepticism has grown in the interim.
(…) The news about dry gullies and sterile craters is likely to reinforce a trend in our perception of Mars: it has a lot of interesting geology, but no life.
The exasperated blog owner notes:
What kind of justification is that? Suppose scientists announced evidence for ghosts on Mars. A swarm of studies and publications follows to prove or disprove the claim. NASAlaunches a Ghostology Institute, using public funds, to continue the search. Ghostbuster Rovers land on the red planet, looking under every rock for evidence of the elusive beings. Twenty years later, the ghosts remain undiscovered, but scientists justify the original claim that it did a lot of good because of all the research it generated. “Without it,” a beneficiary exclaims, “the field of ghostology would never have come to exist.” Would that be a Swindle, Timothy?
Space exploration needs astrobiology like Roald Amundsen needed Darwin’s storybook in his pack to reach the South Pole. We explore because things are there. It’s in our nature to discover. Instead of bamboozling the public with NASA propaganda endlessly promising to find life that never shows up, we have a better idea. Promote space exploration on these grounds: We will never fully understand how exceptional the Earth is for life without comparing it in detail to other bodies in the solar system and around other stars. That’s truthful; that’s empirical; that is sufficient.
Science isn’t the goal of these Darwinian materialists: they have a particular goal in mind, of life without origin, of Information without a Speaker.
It ain’t going to happen.
There will be no life on Mars unless we put it there.