Mars sample return is coming, so scientists urge preparing the public for it now

Dec 23, 2019
7
6
15
"The public will doubtless be excited, too. But if the arrival catches folks off guard, there will probably be considerable fear, anxiety and confusion as well, said Sheri Klug Boonstra of Arizona State University's Mars Space Flight Facility."
Like there was when we brought back moon samples?
Like there was when we brought back asteroid samples?
Like there was when we brought back comet samples?
Is she fear mongering, or does she hold the general public is that low regard?
 
  • Like
Reactions: zefal and Marce79

rod

Oct 22, 2019
515
90
460
My opinion - the search for life in the universe is chiefly motivated by belief in the *law of abiogenesis* at work where non-living matter can undergo spontaneous combustion and evolve into life, and later, an evolutionary tree of life. The public could be caught off guard if Mars is shown to support the *law of abiogenesis* for the explanation for the origin of life.
 
Jan 13, 2020
1
2
15
Considering that Space X continues to claim that it'll be capable of landing the first humans on Mars around 2024, which is the purpose of planning an automated sample-return mission for 2031? Unless they're thinking this mission as a test ground for farther places like Titan, Enceladus or Europa. It's clear that if Space X succeeds, the whole world will benefit from this milestone.
 
Jan 13, 2020
2
0
10
[QUOTE = "rod, post: 510480, member: 1107443"]
Mon avis - la recherche de la vie dans l'univers est principalement motivée par la croyance en la * loi de l'abiogenèse * au travail où la matière non vivante peut subir une combustion spontanée et évoluer vers la vie, et plus tard, un arbre de vie évolutif. Le public pourrait être pris au dépourvu s'il est démontré que Mars soutient la * loi de l'abiogenèse * pour l'explication de l'origine de la vie.
[/CITATION]
 
Jan 13, 2020
2
0
10
je trouve cette mission assez débile pour la deuxième partie qui concerne la récupération de la roche est attendre une décennie, pour la récupération.
surtout que la NASA a, Space x , dans les bretelles qui , a des projets plus rapide, vers mars, que la nasa....
 
Jan 13, 2020
4
4
15
*epic*, Q: will the *first pristine pieces of Mars* confirm the law of abiogenesis at work throughout the universe that explains the origin of life?
Rod, I'm not sure what you're asking...abiogenesis is implied by the existence of life. Obviously, at some point, there was something that was not alive, and then it became alive. Otherwise all this life wouldn't be here.

Are you trying to suggest that finding life outside of Earth would disprove the existence of God, or something? Because it has no bearing on the existence of God. If there is a God, it designed the laws of physics (including those governing the multiverse, so if there is one, it doesn't change this) in such a way that abiogensis would occur and sentient beings would evolve from lower forms of life on at least one planet, if not multiple planets throughout the universe.

I'm a Deist....but the Roman Catholic Church, at least, teaches that the existence of alien life and alien civilizations does not contradict their beliefs.

Byrd Pinkerton

What would it mean for Catholicism for us to discover intelligent life elsewhere?
Guy Consolmagno

You know, we’ve already got [parts of scripture] that say that we’re not the only intelligent things made by God. That’s already built into the system.

You’ve got marvelous places [in the Bible] where a farmer talks about the stars shouting for joy at their creator.

We don’t know what we’re talking about. And as long as we realize that it’s fun to hypothesize, it’s fun to have fun with the ideas.
source, Interview with Jesuit Brother Guy Consolmagno

Guy Consolmagno is the current head of the Vatican Observatory. He has a BS in Planetary Science from MIT. Yes, that MIT, where smart people go to school. He also has a Ph.D. in Planetary Science from the University of Arizona. So he knows his stuff about science and about religion. And he says there's no contradiction; alien life and alien civilization is completely in keeping with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Dr. Consolmagno is a Jesuit (part of the Roman Catholic Church). I have deep respect for them because they think about religion in a very intellectual way. And they believe that practicing secular science is a way to worship God. The Vatican Observatory does a lot of secular science...they have helped discover exoplanets, do research in cosmology, etc.
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
515
90
460
Rod, I'm not sure what you're asking...abiogenesis is implied by the existence of life. Obviously, at some point, there was something that was not alive, and then it became alive. Otherwise all this life wouldn't be here.

Are you trying to suggest that finding life outside of Earth would disprove the existence of God, or something? Because it has no bearing on the existence of God. If there is a God, it designed the laws of physics (including those governing the multiverse, so if there is one, it doesn't change this) in such a way that abiogensis would occur and sentient beings would evolve from lower forms of life on at least one planet, if not multiple planets throughout the universe.

I'm a Deist....but the Roman Catholic Church, at least, teaches that the existence of alien life and alien civilizations does not contradict their beliefs.



source, Interview with Jesuit Brother Guy Consolmagno

Guy Consolmagno is the current head of the Vatican Observatory. He has a BS in Planetary Science from MIT. Yes, that MIT, where smart people go to school. He also has a Ph.D. in Planetary Science from the University of Arizona. So he knows his stuff about science and about religion. And he says there's no contradiction; alien life and alien civilization is completely in keeping with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Dr. Consolmagno is a Jesuit (part of the Roman Catholic Church). I have deep respect for them because they think about religion in a very intellectual way. And they believe that practicing secular science is a way to worship God. The Vatican Observatory does a lot of secular science...they have helped discover exoplanets, do research in cosmology, etc.
neutrino78x, you provided some good info to unpack. I shall touch upon a small amount. You said "Rod, I'm not sure what you're asking...abiogenesis is implied by the existence of life."

Since Louis Pasteur work, the law of biogenesis is *implied*. We can look at the fossil record from Cambrian explosion through the Cenozoic, the law of biogenesis is *implied* in the evolutional tree of life documented, not abiogenesis taking place creating the evolutionary tree of life in the fossil record. I am aware of Guy Consolmagno studies in astronomy and thanks for the link. However, it is clear the goal of cosmology today is to explain the origin of everything - without a creator or creators so no god pulled the trigger on the Big Bang event. Will Science Someday Rule Out the Possibility of God?

The livescience report from Sep-2012 was very revealing here. Looking to show life is on Mars today or developed there in the past - is aimed at promoting the law of abiogenesis for the origin of life and that this law is working throughout the universe, thus SETI studies is an example. Rod is not opposed to science here seeking this goal, I just appreciate a more straightforward acknowledgement that this is the primary objective of *origins science* today. My opinion.
 
Jan 10, 2020
46
12
35
NASA has to assume Spacex's plans will not materialise. Spacex is innovative and I believe the starship concept is sheer genius. The idea that a group of people, in the near future, can hop on a starship, spend two and a half years away from Earth, land on Mars and have rocket fuel, manufactured on Mars, awaiting on the surface, is hard for me to think realistic. Re: sample return, I suspect that if evidence of life found, most likely have same DNA with same amino acids as earth life. I believe there has been life exchanged between the two planets as a consequence of meteorite exchange (panspermia) so Mar life prob. no more than extension of earth life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod

rod

Oct 22, 2019
515
90
460
NASA has to assume Spacex's plans will not materialise. Spacex is innovative and I believe the starship concept is sheer genius. The idea that a group of people, in the near future, can hop on a starship, spend two and a half years away from Earth, land on Mars and have rocket fuel, manufactured on Mars, awaiting on the surface, is hard for me to think realistic. Re: sample return, I suspect that if evidence of life found, most likely have same DNA with same amino acids as earth life. I believe there has been life exchanged between the two planets as a consequence of meteorite exchange (panspermia) so Mar life prob. no more than extension of earth life.
panspermia does not explain the origin of life like the assumption of the law of abiogenesis. If life developed on Earth or Mars and other exoplanets - the law of abiogenesis is assumed in science today. I will wait for the Mars samples to be returned and studied, just like ALH84001 meteorite was during the Clinton Administration. However, this report suggests the public must be prepared for something here :)
 
Jan 10, 2020
46
12
35
panspermia does not explain the origin of life like the assumption of the law of abiogenesis. If life developed on Earth or Mars and other exoplanets - the law of abiogenesis is assumed in science today. I will wait for the Mars samples to be returned and studied, just like ALH84001 meteorite was during the Clinton Administration. However, this report suggests the public must be prepared for something here :)
 
Jan 10, 2020
46
12
35
If there are living microbes on Mars, they are more than likely well below the surface where there is saline pressurised liquid water. This means that if a Mars return sample is negative for life, the existence of life on Mars has not been disproven. All life on earth came from same source (all DNA has same amino acids) however no prebiotic molecules found so cannot be sure if abiogenesis occurred on this planet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod

rod

Oct 22, 2019
515
90
460
If there are living microbes on Mars, they are more than likely well below the surface where there is saline pressurised liquid water. This means that if a Mars return sample is negative for life, the existence of life on Mars has not been disproven. All life on earth came from same source (all DNA has same amino acids) however no prebiotic molecules found so cannot be sure if abiogenesis occurred on this planet.
You make a good observation about *disproven*. There have been quite a number of efforts since the Viking landers looking for life on Mars and back to Percival Lowell too. Science theories are testable - and falsifiable. How many negative tests for life on Mars does it take to falsify this doctrine? That is a problem for NASA and funding :)
 
Jan 13, 2020
1
0
10
Jan 13, 2020
54
27
60
However, it is clear the goal of cosmology today is to explain the origin of everything - without a creator or creators so no god pulled the trigger on the Big Bang event.
That's the goal of all science, isn't it?: To explain the observations without using magic, or creators, or "vibes" and such. You can still point at all of it and say, "God did that!"

Scientists aren't out to "prove abiogenesis happened" or "is possible". Abiogenesis is a foregone conclusion. Once there was no life, then there was. What connects these two state is the process of abiogensis.

At a point in space where once there was no star, there is now a star. Star formation connects these two states. Or was it "The Creator"? Can't it just be both?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Truthseeker007
Dec 11, 2019
250
69
260
I'm a Deist....but the Roman Catholic Church, at least, teaches that the existence of alien life and alien civilizations does not contradict their beliefs.
Sorry to get off topic but wow it is nice to meet a Deist. I wasn't sure any still existed. I am not a Deist myself because I don't become a part of anything but I do love the way they think. Do you like the work of Thomas Paine? Gosh the book Age of Reason is an amazing book written in the 1700's. I know at the age of enlightenment their were many more Deists until the Christian religion gobbled them up again.

That is true the Catholic church has recognized Alien life. Some Christians will say though the Catholic church isn't Christian. :rolleyes: :DThat would be like me saying I didn't come from my mom because she has different colored eyes even though I came out of her womb.:D
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
515
90
460
That's the goal of all science, isn't it?: To explain the observations without using magic, or creators, or "vibes" and such. You can still point at all of it and say, "God did that!"

Scientists aren't out to "prove abiogenesis happened" or "is possible". Abiogenesis is a foregone conclusion. Once there was no life, then there was. What connects these two state is the process of abiogensis.

At a point in space where once there was no star, there is now a star. Star formation connects these two states. Or was it "The Creator"? Can't it just be both?
My observation about science. The goal of science in the geocentric solar system vs. heliocentric solar system debate was not *origins science*. The debate in the time of Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Cassini involved how to measure and show motion or distances like the distance to Mars, and if the Earth was immovable. This was repeatable, verifiable, testable science that could be shown true or false by observations and measurements. Origin science is very different than this standard of testing. When Galileo documented the Galilean moons moving around Jupiter, today I can see and verify that these moons are there and working according to Kepler and Newton using telescopes, e.g. published ephemeris tables for Galilean moon events to observe at Jupiter. Origins science does not have this level of verification, no telescope can see the Big Bang event or the cause of the Big Bang event. Origins science is reconstructing the unobserved past where events took place - that are not repeatable, e.g. the Cambrian explosions fossils.

Rod makes a clear distinction between the two, different types and goals of science here. Origins science by its nature will have areas in a model that likely will never be fully testable, thus falsifiable too concerning the answer for how we got here today.
 
Jan 13, 2020
54
27
60
My observation about science. The goal of science in the geocentric solar system vs. heliocentric solar system debate was not *origins science*. The debate in the time of Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Cassini involved how to measure and show motion or distances like the distance to Mars, and if the Earth was immovable. This was repeatable, verifiable, testable science that could be shown true or false by observations and measurements. Origin science is very different than this standard of testing. When Galileo documented the Galilean moons moving around Jupiter, today I can see and verify that these moons are there and working according to Kepler and Newton using telescopes, e.g. published ephemeris tables for Galilean moon events to observe at Jupiter. Origins science does not have this level of verification, no telescope can see the Big Bang event or the cause of the Big Bang event. Origins science is reconstructing the unobserved past where events took place - that are not repeatable, e.g. the Cambrian explosions fossils.

Rod makes a clear distinction between the two, different types and goals of science here. Origins science by its nature will have areas in a model that likely will never be fully testable, thus falsifiable too concerning the answer for how we got here today.
"Origins science"

Yes, when scientists are looking into the formation of life, they are looking into the "origins" of life. When scientists are trying to learn the early history of our universe, they are studying the "origin" of our universe. Surely you would not expect them to say, "Welp, we know all we can, chalk up the rest to magic!"

They are searching for explanations that fit into a deterministic universe, governed by natural laws. What else?

You are totally incorrect to say or imply that it is their "agenda" to "exclude a creator". That's nonsense. If it is coincidental that the proposed explanations contradict your preferred religious dogma, that's your problem. You are the one who will have to adjust. And at no point will you have to drop a belief in Gods. Theism and dogma are not the same thing.

Why aren't you also noting that scientists attempt to explain star formation (I.E., "star origins", to retrofit it to your arbitrary, rhetorical constraint) without invoking magic or gods or creators? You seem to have selectively applied your standard to learning about the origins of life.

"Star formation" was a foregone conclusion, once we understood the ages of stars and the age of the universe. "Volcano formation" was a foregone conclusion, once we understood the age of the Earth and the ages of volcanos. We then proceeded to try to explain and understand these processes.

Now we understand that, once, our universe contained no atoms. Now, it contains life. So, abiogenesis, similarly, is a foregone conclusion. But now you object... Or, at the very least, hurl accusations of bias.

I want you to think about why you are inconsistently and selectively applying this standard. Maybe doing this will give you some insight into why your entire diatribe about this narrow version of "origins science"is frivolous and offbase.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Truthseeker007

rod

Oct 22, 2019
515
90
460
"Origins science"

Yes, when scientists are looking into the formation of life, they are looking I to the "origins" of life. When scientists are trying to learn the early history of our universe, they are studying the "origin" of our universe. Surely you would not expect them to say, "Welp, we know all we can, chalk up he rest to magic!"

They are searching for explanations that fit into a deterministic universe, governed by natural laws. What else?

You are totally incorrect to say that it is some "agenda" to "exclude a creator". That's nonsense. If it is coincidental that the proposed explanations contradicts your preferred religious dogma, that's your problem. You are the one who will have to adjust. And at no point will you have to drop a belief in Gods. Theism and dogma are not the same thing.

FYI, there is plenty of dogma in origins models that no one observed and can subject to repeated testing and observations. The ability to test and falsify a particular origin model is weakened in many cases compared to the debates between the geocentric solar system vs. the heliocentric solar system (and this featured dogma too). Dogma can be found in many areas of science, life as well as politics :)
 
Jan 13, 2020
54
27
60
The goal of science in the geocentric solar system vs. heliocentric solar system debate was not *origins science*.
Says the guy with the benefit of centuries of empirical knowledge under his belt. Galileo -- who was forced to lie and recant his findings to keep his head attached to his body -- may disagree with you, or at the very least tell you, "Oh, these guys here threatening my life certainly think I am using 'origins science' to blaspheme!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Truthseeker007
Jan 13, 2020
54
27
60
FYI, there is plenty of dogma in origins models that no one observed and can subject to repeated testing and observations.
There is?

Name three examples. Please be articulate and specific, so we can discuss these examples,instead of spending three pages trying to clarify your meanings and definitions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Truthseeker007

rod

Oct 22, 2019
515
90
460
Says the guy with the benefit of centuries of empirical knowledge under his belt. Galileo -- who was forced to lie and recant his findings to keep his head attached to his body -- may disagree with you, or at the very least tell you, "Oh, these guys here threatening my life certainly think I am using 'origins science' to blaspheme!"
No, Galileo used his telescope to show tiny lights moving around Jupiter that contradicted the geocentric teaching. Today, using my telescopes I can see the same Galilean moons moving around Jupiter and use ephemeris tables that accurately predict various Galilean moon events at Jupiter that I can see. This is a very good example of repeatable observations supporting the heliocentric solar system that in many origin science models - is clearly not there and cannot be repeated. Galileo was not using origins science and Galileo did not claim the moons existed billions of years ago that he was looking at and others could see.
 
Jan 13, 2020
54
27
60
No, Galileo used his telescope to show tiny lights moving around Jupiter that contradicted the geocentric teaching. Today, using my telescopes I can see the same Galilean moons moving around Jupiter and use ephemeris tables that accurately predict various Galilean moon events at Jupiter that I can see. This is a very good example of repeatable observations supporting the heliocentric solar system that in many origin science models - is clearly not there and cannot be repeated. Galileo was not using origins science and Galileo did not claim the moons existed billions of years ago that he was looking at and others could see.
"Origin science models"

In other words, "hypotheses". Hypotheses are not dogma. They are not declared, "fact". You are not making the point you think you are making.

Still waiting for those examples. You have a lot of general rhetoric, but you are sorely lacking in specifics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Truthseeker007

rod

Oct 22, 2019
515
90
460
"Mars sample return is coming, so scientists urge preparing the public for it now"

The discussion now in many of the threads has nothing to do with the coming news that the public must be prepared for when samples of Mars arrive on Earth and are studied. Meteorite ALH84001 is a good example of Mars and what happened during the Clinton Administration to life on Mars claims. No one needed to prepare the public then :)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY