NASA Scientist (Creationist) on life on Mars

[Natural Citizen]

I read papers like these quite frequently. Seems like every time I turn around there is another one there waiting but this one I find interesting because of the timing. Much could be debated but will just add it here as an informative paper more so than one to be placed up for debate. We don't particularly have a science thread anyhow and even if we did I wouldn't want to see such discussion bastardized and removed from relevant context and placed into the commies did it type speak. Besides, it's relevant discussion moving from the current debate in education/science/faith from within those who decide upon such a platform toward a merge with private and public space ...stuff. Even if many don't think so, it really is.

...All of this simply means that real science supports faith in God. Science cannot prove that we are here by chance (evolution) or by design (creation). However, the scientific evidence can be used to support one or the other. It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design be presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory, especially in public schools, which receive funding from taxpayers who are on both sides of the issue. Also, no one is being forced to believe in God or adopt a particular religion so there is no true violation of...

Shocking statement about Mars by NASA scientist

 

[Sola_Fide]

Ron Paul makes such a great point when he says these huge evolutionist/creationist debates don't happen in homeschool groups and private schools. Why? The answer is obvious.

The solution is not to have public schools teach both creationism and evolution. The solution is to end public schools.

 

[Sola_Fide]

By the way, your Carl Sagan quote in your signature is somewhat accurate:

Science is more than a body of knowledge, it is a way of thinking.

He's right. But he would be more accurate to describe it as a religion. Science is a mythical religion.

 

[Origanalist]

To post a thread on it is putting it up for debate.

 

[squarepusher]

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/29/pat-robertson-challenges-creationism/

04:04 PM ET


Pat Robertson challenges creationism By Dan Merica, CNN

Washington (CNN) – Televangelist Pat Robertson challenged the idea that Earth is 6,000 years old this week, saying the man who many credit with conceiving the idea, former Archbishop of Ireland James Ussher, “wasn’t inspired by the Lord when he said that it all took 6,000 years.”
The statement was in response to a question Robertson fielded Tuesday from a viewer on his Christian Broadcasting Network show "The 700 Club.” In a submitted question, the viewer wrote that one of her biggest fears was that her children and husband would not go to heaven “because they question why the Bible could not explain the existence of dinosaurs.”
“You go back in time, you've got radiocarbon dating. You got all these things, and you've got the carcasses of dinosaurs frozen in time out in the Dakotas,” Robertson said. “They're out there. So, there was a time when these giant reptiles were on the Earth, and it was before the time of the Bible. So, don't try and cover it up and make like everything was 6,000 years. That's not the Bible.”
Before answering the question, Robertson acknowledged the statement was controversial by saying, “I know that people will probably try to lynch me when I say this.”
“If you fight science, you are going to lose your children, and I believe in telling them the way it was,” Robertson concluded.
Forty-six percent of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years, according to a survey released by Gallup in June. That number has remained unchanged for the past 30 years, since 1982, when Gallup first asked the question on creationism versus evolution.
The Gallup poll has not specifically asked about views on the age of the Earth.
Ussher’s work, from the mid-1600s, is widely cited by creationists as evidence that Earth is only a few thousand years old. Answer in Genesis, the famed Christian creationist ministry behind the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, cites Ussher as proof of Earth’s age. They describe the archbishop as “a brilliant scholar who had very good reasons for his conclusions concerning the date of creation.”
For Christians who read the creation account in Genesis literally, the six days in the account are strictly 24-hour periods and leave no room for evolution. Young Earth creationists use this construct and biblical genealogies to determine the age of the Earth, and typically come up with 6,000 to 10,000 years.
Most scientists, however, agree that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe is 14.5 billion years old.
The idea of creationism has been scorned by the mainstream scientific community since shortly after Charles Darwin introduced "The Origin of Species" in 1859. By 1880, The American Naturalists, a science journal, reported nearly every major university in America was teaching evolution.
The question about Earth’s age has been in the news recently. Earlier this month, Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida attempted to walk the line between science and faith-based creationism in remarks that that provoked the ire of liberal blogs and left the door open to creationism.
“I'm not a scientist, man,” Rubio told GQ’s Micheal Hainey. “I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States.”
– CNN’s Eric Marrapodi contributed to this report.

 

[Sola_Fide]

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/29/pat-robertson-challenges-creationism/

04:04 PM ET


Pat Robertson challenges creationism By Dan Merica, CNN

Washington (CNN) – Televangelist Pat Robertson challenged the idea that Earth is 6,000 years old this week, saying the man who many credit with conceiving the idea, former Archbishop of Ireland James Ussher, “wasn’t inspired by the Lord when he said that it all took 6,000 years.”
The statement was in response to a question Robertson fielded Tuesday from a viewer on his Christian Broadcasting Network show "The 700 Club.” In a submitted question, the viewer wrote that one of her biggest fears was that her children and husband would not go to heaven “because they question why the Bible could not explain the existence of dinosaurs.”
“You go back in time, you've got radiocarbon dating. You got all these things, and you've got the carcasses of dinosaurs frozen in time out in the Dakotas,” Robertson said. “They're out there. So, there was a time when these giant reptiles were on the Earth, and it was before the time of the Bible. So, don't try and cover it up and make like everything was 6,000 years. That's not the Bible.”
Before answering the question, Robertson acknowledged the statement was controversial by saying, “I know that people will probably try to lynch me when I say this.”
“If you fight science, you are going to lose your children, and I believe in telling them the way it was,” Robertson concluded.
Forty-six percent of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years, according to a survey released by Gallup in June. That number has remained unchanged for the past 30 years, since 1982, when Gallup first asked the question on creationism versus evolution.
The Gallup poll has not specifically asked about views on the age of the Earth.
Ussher’s work, from the mid-1600s, is widely cited by creationists as evidence that Earth is only a few thousand years old. Answer in Genesis, the famed Christian creationist ministry behind the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, cites Ussher as proof of Earth’s age. They describe the archbishop as “a brilliant scholar who had very good reasons for his conclusions concerning the date of creation.”
For Christians who read the creation account in Genesis literally, the six days in the account are strictly 24-hour periods and leave no room for evolution. Young Earth creationists use this construct and biblical genealogies to determine the age of the Earth, and typically come up with 6,000 to 10,000 years.
Most scientists, however, agree that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe is 14.5 billion years old.
The idea of creationism has been scorned by the mainstream scientific community since shortly after Charles Darwin introduced "The Origin of Species" in 1859. By 1880, The American Naturalists, a science journal, reported nearly every major university in America was teaching evolution.
The question about Earth’s age has been in the news recently. Earlier this month, Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida attempted to walk the line between science and faith-based creationism in remarks that that provoked the ire of liberal blogs and left the door open to creationism.
“I'm not a scientist, man,” Rubio told GQ’s Micheal Hainey. “I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States.”
– CNN’s Eric Marrapodi contributed to this report.

What a bumbling bafoon. Who listens to this idiot anymore?

 

[Natural Citizen]

To post a thread on it is putting it up for debate.

Yeah, maybe. If so though better here than over in the education thread. I mean, heck. I watched a guy get through one of those checkpoints on a video the other day just because he mentioned the word of God and brought out the Bible. The less people messing up a relevant notion the better, I think, so here is where I shared the paper.

We are at a fork in the road and will see tremendous change in the near short term future as far as education infrastructure itself collides with science and theory. Was interesting timing with the speak in that paper and what some see coming from the top and from within technology platforms, ie NASA vs SpaceX and so forth. Religious discussion is a very important aspect of such a merge of powers who play different roles over a broad platform of different infrastructure. Could be something special if folks care to approach it conformingly.

Either way, the course is already scribbled up. Regardless of contradiction I would think relevance in the matter is something the Religious community would consider accepting. If nothing else, from a purely political participation.

 

[Natural Citizen]

By the way, your Carl Sagan quote in your signature is somewhat accurate:



He's right. But he would be more accurate to describe it as a religion. Science is a mythical religion.

Could be said, actually. In fact, it has been. I was actually reading a very in depth white paper on that very subject the other day. If I can find it I'll share it.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Ron Paul makes such a great point when he says these huge evolutionist/creationist debates don't happen in homeschool groups and private schools. Why? The answer is obvious.

The solution is not to have public schools teach both creationism and evolution. The solution is to end public schools.

Morally, you could make such an argument but morals are subjective. Also very delicate when placed into perspective with politics.I thought the argument that the NASA scientist made was very artificial though. I think his creationist ideology was just a plea for the traditional Religious community to conform to education and funding philosophy. Of course, as you were saying the other day there are different ideologies in the Christian community too and was fair to say that it is a much needed break to move from traditional values. That's another reason I even thought about posting this at all.

Well, that and the fact that change is a bipartisan agreement of late and it specifically involves just this very subject.

 

[Origanalist]

So just to clarify for me, do you think the statement in the link is shocking?

 

[Natural Citizen]

What a bumbling bafoon. Who listens to this idiot anymore?

He was right in effect though by bringing up the fact about the youth. Or children, as he put it. You know what he meant by that. Right? This is exactly why I brought up the discussion the other day. Obviously one won't lose their kids in the traditional sense of losing them like you do keys or something material. It's not like I was trying to instigate bad energy. It's important discussion moving forward to a very relevant aspect of change that is happening as we write here. Religious community has an outstanding opportunity to become relevant to the process once again. And across a broad spectrum if they are willing.

 

[Natural Citizen]

So just to clarify for me, do you think the statement in the link is shocking?

Well, no. But I think the statements coming down the road from the private sector may just knock some socks off. I think the timing is peculiar more than anything. Things are changing extremely fast in the education atmosphere and I think there will be some discussion on just who funds some aspects of it. It's probably not practical to keep mixing the term "Government" with education. Which brings the timing of the other spew but just an observation, I guess.

 

[Smart3]

Evolution has nothing to do with "chance".


The conditions for life existed on our planet, and within a mere 200 million years, life came into being. That suggests that it's not difficult for simple life to exist on a planet that isn't too hot or too cold.

I'm convinced Venus and Mars also had life, and Mars may still have life.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Evolution has nothing to do with "chance".


The conditions for life existed on our planet, and within a mere 200 million years, life came into being. That suggests that it's not difficult for simple life to exist on a planet that isn't too hot or too cold.

I'm convinced Venus and Mars also had life, and Mars may still have life.

Is an unfortunate irony that we are reduced to such discussion in a Religion thread created for such debate. For the life of me I cannot understand why Josh hasn't allowed for a specific thread for scientific discussion instead of kind of forcing such discussion to remain scattered and unorganized throughout the board. By default such discussion is doomed to remaining under wraps and lost through age of scattered discussion as I'm recently reminded here.To continue to have to do so through religious terms is simply loaded. Data too needs to be democratized. And it will be. I think that if it isn't something welcomed by those in the liberty community than perhaps best to leave them behind. It's exhausting to continue to remain regulated to discussion just because a certain demograph is not willing to participate in elevated discussion beyond iron age fairy tales.

For what it's worth though, we'll soon be hearing some interesting speak from the space program. It's to that point now. And it is that way because people no longer look to an authority figure to tell them what to think. In fact, thinking people are why we are to this point in the matrix.

Am reminded of Genesis scribbles relating to the notion that in the beginning Earth was formless. No geometry, so to speak. Or something along those lines. Well, guess what? Mars isn't exactly formless itself. Last nights absolutely stunning and "sudden" release from NASA/JPL of the most recent Curiosity photos tell quite a story in itself. As I had mentioned earlier. Very interesting timing. Removed from the fact that now they must do as such. Intelligent people demand it.

 

[jmdrake]

I read papers like these quite frequently. Seems like every time I turn around there is another one there waiting but this one I find interesting because of the timing. Much could be debated but will just add it here as an informative paper more so than one to be placed up for debate. We don't particularly have a science thread anyhow and even if we did I wouldn't want to see such discussion bastardized and removed from relevant context and placed into the commies did it type speak. Besides, it's relevant discussion moving from the current debate in education/science/faith from within those who decide upon such a platform toward a merge with private and public space ...stuff. Even if many don't think so, it really is.



Shocking statement about Mars by NASA scientist

Great find! I was surprised to find this in Pravda. And I kept waiting for the snide attack....that never came. I'd love to see the author debate Bill Nye.

And what about this gem?

MIT scientist Dr. Walt Brown (a creationist) in his book "In The Beginning " points out that during the great Genesis flood, as recorded in the Bible, the fountains of the deep that were let loose could have easily spewed out meteors and meteorites into space that very well may have contained micro-organisms such as bacteria. One thing for sure is that life requires intelligent creation and doesn't come by chance. NASA knows all this but looking for life on other planets is a powerful way to motivate people to want their government to give more and more money to NASA. NASA, after all, is a business with hefty salaries at stake.

A government agency misleading the public to maintain funding? Say it isn't so!

 

[Natural Citizen]

Great find! I was surprised to find this in Pravda. And I kept waiting for the snide attack....that never came. I'd love to see the author debate Bill Nye.

And what about this gem?

MIT scientist Dr. Walt Brown (a creationist) in his book "In The Beginning " points out that during the great Genesis flood, as recorded in the Bible, the fountains of the deep that were let loose could have easily spewed out meteors and meteorites into space that very well may have contained micro-organisms such as bacteria. One thing for sure is that life requires intelligent creation and doesn't come by chance. NASA knows all this but looking for life on other planets is a powerful way to motivate people to want their government to give more and more money to NASA. NASA, after all, is a business with hefty salaries at stake.

A government agency misleading the public to maintain funding? Say it isn't so!

You bring up an interesting platform to open up a larger discussion but for the lfe of me I just cannot bring myself to participate in that within this thread. Which, btw, is why there were no snide remarks. Because if there were then we'd have to discuss it further. Or ask questions. And outside of Religious doctrine moving into scientific debate. Not necessarily welcomed in this particular atmosphere. I don't really care to even get into that debate either because essentially the two cannot remain so far separated. Is not practical in scope.

I'll just mention that Curiosity was placed where it was (By NASA) for a specific reason and ...well...Earth isn't the only planet that's had a great flood or two.It's a truly fascinating discussion if folks were so inclined but isn't practical to do so under regulated terms of controversy or under Religious premise, to be clear. i just put the paper here because we didn't have a science thread and there was no way I was going to put it up for discussion in the education thread. Even if I did put it there too often relevant discussion gets buried and lost because of the lack of organization regarding such discussion. There are probably many good science threads that have been started but lost or out of date because there were no platform for it. Which is an unfortunate travesty. Inconvenient to say the least.

 

[jmdrake]

Well thank you again for posting it. A point of clarification though. I was talking about the lack of any snide remarks in Pravda. I assumed, with it being a Russian owned paper, that the author would only talk about creationism from the standpoint of "Isn't this scientist crazy to think that"? It's the kind of surprise I had when I saw Geraldo Rivera discuss WTC 7 without any snide remarks. And yeah, it's a shame that it's difficult to dispassionately discuss science (and history for that matter) on web forum.

You bring up an interesting platform to open up a larger discussion but for the lfe of me I just cannot bring myself to participate in that within this thread. Which, btw, is why there were no snide remarks. Because if there were then we'd have to discuss it further. Or ask questions. And outside of Religious doctrine moving into scientific debate. Not necessarily welcomed in this particular atmosphere. I don't really care to even get into that debate either because essentially the two cannot remain so far separated. Is not practical in scope.

I'll just mention that Curiosity was placed where it was (By NASA) for a specific reason and ...well...Earth isn't the only planet that's had a great flood or two.It's a truly fascinating discussion if folks were so inclined but isn't practical to do so under regulated terms of controversy or under Religious premise, to be clear. i just put the paper here because we didn't have a science thread and there was no way I was going to put it up for discussion in the education thread. Even if I did put it there too often relevant discussion gets buried and lost because of the lack of organization regarding such discussion. There are probably many good science threads that have been started but lost or out of date because there were no platform for it. Which is an unfortunate travesty. Inconvenient to say the least.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Well thank you again for posting it. A point of clarification though. I was talking about the lack of any snide remarks in Pravda. I assumed, with it being a Russian owned paper, that the author would only talk about creationism from the standpoint of "Isn't this scientist crazy to think that"? It's the kind of surprise I had when I saw Geraldo Rivera discuss WTC 7 without any snide remarks. And yeah, it's a shame that it's difficult to dispassionately discuss science (and history for that matter) on web forum.

Yes, I know what you meant. Is an interesting and quirky phenomenon but one that is almost expected because nations are beginning to see. Comments were an obvious reflection of that.

 

[torchbearer]

if we can find a bacteria that can survive under cold soil, eat rust and produce oxygen, we could terraform the little red planet.

 

[jmdrake]

if we can find a bacteria that can survive under cold soil, eat rust and produce oxygen, we could terraform the little red planet.

Well tardigrades (much larger than bacteria) are able to survive extreme cold and the vacuum of space. Maybe they can be engineered to eat rust and produce oxygen?