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

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jan 13, 2020
62
30
560
"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 :)
But your reaction shows that might not be the case, should undeniable proof of life or abiogenesis be discovered. Just the prospect of it has you declaring scientists are on a mission to rule out the religions of the Earth!
What happens if people buy into that? What happens, if people suddenly think they are forced to choose to stop trusting science and scientists in general, or to discard their sacred dogma? The implications are far ranging.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,006
723
2,560
But your reaction shows that might not be the case, should undeniable proof of life or abiogenesis be discovered. Just the prospect of it has you declaring scientists are on a mission to rule out the religions of the Earth!
No, that is not my point about discovering life on Mars or what I said in this discussion. There is an underling critical assumption involved in all origin of life studies, including SETI searches. The law of abiogenesis must be the only answer for the origin of life, here, Mars, or on exoplanets. If the samples come back from Mars and show nothing for life on Mars - how many more negative tests are needed to falsify the teaching in science?

There is a long history of looking for life on Mars. At the present, I wait the test results and remember well what happened with ALH84001 meteorite. Remember, for science to have a law, that law must be shown operating in many areas of nature too, e.g. gravity, Kepler planetary laws, etc. I refer to the law of abiogenesis because for many - this is still a belief and not scientific fact like the Galilean moons at Jupiter.
 
Jan 13, 2020
62
30
560
There is an underling critical assumption involved in all origin of life studies, including SETI searches. The law of abiogenesis must be the only answer for the origin of life, here, Mars, or on exoplanets.
Yes, which is just a re-statement of the basic assumption of all science:

The universe is deterministic and governed by laws.

What you are trying to pigeon hole as a narrow focus on abiogenesis isn't that at all. Similarly, when studying star formation, it was assumed that stars formed via natural, deterministic process.

Again, you apply this standard selectively to the formation of life. Regardless of your motivations for doing this, it is frivolous.

When scientists set out to discover the bacterium that causes a staph infection, were they setting out to exclude demons as the source of this disease? Of course not. They set out to explain how we get a staph infection. It would be frivolous and meaningless to point at them and say they had an agenda regarding "origins science" -- i.e., the origins of staph infection -- and that it was purposed to rule out demons as the source of disease. This declaration teaches us nothing, yields no useful predictions, and has literally zero bearing on the scientific process of learning how staph bacteria enter our bodies and cause infection.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Truthseeker007

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,006
723
2,560
Yes, which is just a re-statement of the basic assumption of all science:

The universe is deterministic and governed by laws.

What you are trying to pigeon hole as a narrow focus on abiogenesis isn't that at all. Similarly, when studying star formation, it was assumed that stars formed via natural, deterministic process.

Again, you apply this standard selectively to the formation of life. Regardless of your motivations for doing this, it is frivolous
*frivolous* is an opinion view. Like I said, I will wait for the Mars samples returned in the test for life on those samples. The tests will either confirm or deny, just like ALH84001 meteorite testing. If negative test results, it will raise questions about how many negative tests are needed to falsify that Mars has life on it today or ever had life on it. Concerning the definition of laws in science and governed by laws, Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, did not approach science like that and neither does the Declaration of Independence concerning the laws of Nature and where those laws came from.
 
Jan 13, 2020
62
30
560
*frivolous* is an opinion view.
Which I supported, by arguing that it is meaningless, teaches us nothing, yields no useful predictions, and has absolutely zero bearing on the scientific process. Calling my argument "an opinion" is not a counterargument.


If negative test results, it will raise questions about how many negative tests are needed to falsify that Mars has life on it today or ever had life on it.
And the only correct answer would be, "many, many more". Surely you would not conduct an experiment to search for life in the ocean by collecting a teaspoon of ocean water, finding no life, then concluding the experiments are finished and conclusive.


Concerning the definition of laws in science and governed by laws, Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, did not approach science like that and neither does the Declaration of Independence concerning the laws of Nature and where those laws came from.
That is utterly false. When they were actually using the scientific method, yes, they were conducting their experiments without any deference to any magic or gods. When Newton was trying to explain gravity, whether there were no gods, one God, or millions of gods had absolutely no bearing on his methods, other than to possibly worsen them at times and cause him to make mistakes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Truthseeker007

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,006
723
2,560
"That is utterly false." No, Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Galileo, Kepler, Newton investigated and discovered various laws of nature and science because they believed the Creator was orderly and the universe was designed to be understood - not a universe created by magic or just random chance in the origin of the universe. This is seen in the Declaration of Independence too about the Laws of Nature.
 
Jan 13, 2020
62
30
560
"That is utterly false." No, Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Galileo, Kepler, Newton investigated and discovered various laws of nature and science because they believed the Creator was orderly and the universe was designed to be understood - not a universe created by magic or just random chance in the origin of the universe. This is seen in the Declaration of Independence too about the Laws of Nature.
Yet, that belief had zero bearing on the scientific process. You can say you want to discover a cure for cancer because you love Jesus, but that Jesus love isn't going to have any bearing on the process of discovering this cure.

One little question settles this:

How would the process of discovering, for instance, that all objects "fall" at the same rate in a vacuum had changed, if Newton was atheist, or believed that all worms were actually gods on Earth? It would not have.

When you go to a neurologist, do you ask what their religion is? No, because it has zero bearing on the deductive reasoning process the neurologist will use.

Although, personally, I would avoid any doctor that doesn't accept evolutionary theory. Such a doctor cannot be fully trusted.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Truthseeker007

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,006
723
2,560
"Yet, that belief had zero bearing on the scientific process."

History records otherwise in the writings of Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton. It was not an atheist world view that motivated them to investigate nature and discover various laws of science or belief in a magical origin for the universe or a universe that was unknowable because a random accident created it. What is happening in the present age that governs science and origins science, is a different worldview reigning.
 
Jan 13, 2020
62
30
560
History records otherwise in the writings of Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton.
No it doesn't. Their beliefs in gods had zero bearing on the scientific process. Which is why they had to undertake it in the first place, instead of simply consulting their iron aged handbook.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Truthseeker007

sward

Administrator
Staff member
Oct 10, 2019
68
103
710
Let's keep this on topic folks. Loving the civil debate, but friendly reminder derailing threads, uncivil discussion and off topic posting will result in a warning or ban.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod
Jan 20, 2020
6
1
15
Privately funded...by whom? Even Space X is counting on big government funding for any of its proposed manned missions.
The idea about how privately funded robotic space missions can be profitable is described at the bottom here:

<<Link removed by moderator>>

Scroll down to the bottom since that is the relevant part about the financing.

Bob Clark
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts