Why I’m Offended Over NASA’s Mars Rover Mission

I might be wrong, but I’ve read several stories about the Mars Rover mission now – and every single one of them only provides ONE reason for why NASA launched this $2.5 billion mission: to search for proof of evolution in the form of proof of panspermia.

Panspermia is the view that life was – as religious people have told them for thousands of years – far too complex to have originated on earth.  So since we know that there could not possibly have been an Intelligent Creator God, the only remaining possibility is that life evolved somewhere else and then came here.

Panspermia has largely been the most radical religious faith commitment of atheistic scientism: because you’ve merely punted the origin of life to a place where we can’t possibly find how it “evolved.”

Directed panspermia is an attempt to evade some of the difficulties associated with the concept of abiogenesis. Panspermia theories argue that life began elsewhere in the universe and was subsequently seeded on earth. Some proponents of panspermia hold that life rode on meteorites travelling through space which eventually landed on earth and allowed the Darwinian mechanism to take over. A major problem with this suggestion is the sheer improbability that any life form could survive the radiation and extreme temperatures found in space.

Other proponents of panspermia, such as the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, Francis Crick, suggest that intelligent aliens visited earth and seeded it with the first life form. The willingness of many scientists to resort to the hypothesis of aliens does not say much for their prospects of finding a feasible naturalistic model for the origin of life. The main problem with panspermia theories is that they only explain how life initially got to earth — they say nothing about the actual origin of life. All such theories merely attempt to shift the problem of the emergence of life to another location.

But here we are, spending $2.5 billion to see if life originated on Mars.

In a way, it’s almost reassuring: the very craziest theory of evolution is now essentially the most mainstream of all the craziest possibilities.

What’s the purpose of the Mars Rover mission?  It is this:

to find whether Mars has the crucial ingredients that could once have supported life.

Well, here’s the thing: what happens if the Mars Rover finds no life on Mars?  What if they don’t find evidence that Mars supported life?  Was the mission a failure?  Was the money wasted?  How could it NOT be given the purpose of the mission???

NASA needs to either find something they can call “evidence” that Mars could have once supported life or they need to explain why they pissed away $2.5 billion in a day when America is going broke.

I’m just telling you right now that they’re going to conjure up the former so they won’t have to do the latter.  I read articles whose headlines screech that some incredible new find has “proven” evolution.  Invariably I end up reading some incredibly minor and trivial thing that amounts to “Mt. Molehill.”  If you read enough of these, you will begin to conclude that the more meaningless a “discovery” is, the louder they are in hyping it.

And just to continue: if they can’t find life on Mars and aren’t able to fabricate some “evidence” that they did, would they finally acknowledge that boy were we ever wrong in our idiotic Darwinism and let’s all join hands and worship our Lord God Almighty?  NO!  Theirs is a radical religious faith commitment that literally everything came from nothing.  They believe that life came from lifelessness.  They believe that intelligence is the result of mindlessness.  They believe that all the purpose and meaning and value came from purposeless, meaningless, valueless nothingness.

When the purpose of a $2.5 billion mission is to find evidence of life, there is a lot of pressure to FIND “evidence” of life.  But let’s say they don’t “find” it.  Is that it?  Do they acknowledge, well, shoot, I guess we were wrong”?  Hardly.  They’ll say, well, there were a lot of other sites we could have landed on.  We’ll need to come back to a different site next time.  Or to a different planet (Uranus sounds good).  Or to one of an infinite number of planets.  Believing that life is “out there” means never having to admit you were wrong.

With the help of Ann Coulter, I’ve described this impossibility of ever refuting an atheist to the satisfaction of the atheist before:

Ann Coulter pointed it out with the false claim that evolution was “falsifiable” versus any religious claim which was not. Darwin said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” And Ann Coulter brilliantly changed a couple of words to demonstrate what a load of crap that was: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by God, my God theory would absolutely break down.”

In any words, evolution is no more “scientifically falsifiable” than even the most ardent young earth creationist claim. Their standard is impossible to prove. I mean, you show me that God “could not possibly have” created the earth.

The whole way they sold evolution was a lie.

And I then stated:

There is NEVER an admission of guilt or an acknowledgment of error by these people.  They simply suppress or destroy the evidence, or “morph” their argument, or anything but acknowledge that just maybe they should be open-minded and question their presuppositions.

The reason “scientists” tell us that we can’t drag our religion into science is because you can’t disprove that God didn’t create.  That might be true; but you can’t disprove evolution any more than you can disprove God.  Because both evolution and Creation are equally religious views.

Then there’s NASA.  How much should we trust an agency that literally got started by Nazi rocket scientists?

NASA is the home of James Hansen – a man who literally screeched that the world was going to freeze in an ice age before changing his tune to say it was going to melt due to global warming before changing his tune to say that it wasn’t so much “global warming” as “climate change” to changing his tune to say that no it’s going to melt again.  They tell us that “snowfalls are going to be a thing of the past” in the summer and then tell us – and I’m not making this up – that it’s so damn cold only because it’s really so damn hot in the winter.

You can understand the mindset: when you’ve got the coldest winter since 1886, blame it on global warming and then make sure you quit calling it “global warming” and start calling it “climate change.”  When you call it “climate change” you don’t even NEED a damn theory any more; all you’ve got to do is demagogue every hot day or every cold day or every tornado or every hurricane or every whatever.

Being completely wrong is a way of life for these fools.

“Science” says that global warming skepticism equals RACISM.

Problems with this ice age no we meant global warming no we meant climate change no we were right when we said global warming (at least until winter comes again) theory abound:

I’ve written numerous articles on the legitimate issues casting doubt on global warming. Consider facts such as: 1) the history of planet earth is a history of climate change and huge swings in climate; 2) we have seen even larger episodes of “global warming” on the planets in our solar system – none of which have SUVs driving around on them – than we see on our own planet earth; 3) the “science” of global warming has been warped with mindboggling acts of fraud and shocking manipulation of data; 4) not only is there no “consensus” about “global warming” but in fact increasing numbers of scientists are outright hostile about “‘decarbonizing’ the world’s economy”; and 5) in spite of all evidence to the contrary, the United Nations is demanding $76 TRILLION in what amounts to pure socialist redistributionism to “save the planet” from “climate change.”

I just learned that the Old Kingdom of Egypt began as a result of an enormous climate shift in which Northern Africa went from a verdant and fertile land to a desert while the Nile began to bloom (4000 BC) and collapsed as a result of massive climate change in which the Nile transformed from lush farmland into dust. And nobody was driving SUVs, were they??? Just as nobody is driving SUVs on Mars.

The fact of the matter is that it was never anything more than a completely artificial and arbitrary decision to blame manmade CO2 – which constitutes such a tiny infinitesimal fraction of the actual global warming gasses it is unreal – for all of our current climate change. When manmade CO2 very obviously never had ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with all the myriad episodes of climate change that have characterized the history of planet earth from time immemorial ever before.

But liberals swear up and down that we must spend at least $76 trillion to fight the manmade CO2 bogeyman regardless.

Oops.  Did I say the left wanted $76 trillion?  That was yesterday.  They actually need $145 trillion.  They need to travel to their conferences so they can learn to be better hysterical alarmist in style, you see.  When said global warming conferences aren’t postponed or canceled due to snow.

And the people who are so damned occupied with finding life somewhere else have documented an appalling hostility to human life on our very own planet:

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.” – Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical animal on the earth.”
– Michael Fox, vice-president of The Humane Society

Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.”
– John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.”
– Sir James Lovelock, Healing Gaia

The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
– Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”
United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb

A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
– Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor [and major DEMOCRAT PARTY DONOR]

So pardon me if I’m not impressed with the “James Hansen Agency” or its “missions.”

And pardon me for looking at what “scientists” and even NASA “scientists” have done with global warming and understand why I’m more than a tad skeptical about this “mission” that really already seems to have a predetermined “discovery.”

It is hard for me to believe that our most brilliant of brains over at NASA couldn’t have figured out a way to come up with a purpose for sending that rover to Mars that didn’t involve “proving” that there is no God and I’m just the result of a race that began as a protein that evolved into a microbe that evolved into a fish that evolved into a lizard that evolved into a monkey that evolved into a man.  And I’m saying if that was their only reason for their $2.5 billion mission, I wish they’d saved the money.

I remember when the first Soviet astronaut went into space: he declared “I don’t see any God up here.”

It’s truly sad that even as NASA has outsourced its space program to the Russians at the cost of $63 million per seat in the age of Obama, we are at the very same time embracing the “mission” of the Soviet space program to prove there isn’t a God out in space.

But that is where we seem to be.

If you’re going to have a mission to explore space and increase the knowledge of science, I’m all for it.  If you’re going to have a mission to prove atheistic panspermia, then leave me out of it.  And leave my tax dollars out of it.  If you think I’m wrong for having that attitude, then I hope you’ll be demanding that NASA’s next mission goes to Mars to “search for the crucial ingredients to support young earth creationism.”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

13 Responses to “Why I’m Offended Over NASA’s Mars Rover Mission”

  1. HL Says:

    Great information and analysis, thanks! It is staggering how much $$$ is being wasted.

    I must tell you this part of your post has us laughing out loud!
    “You can understand the mindset: when you’ve got the coldest winter since 1886, blame it on global warming and then make sure you quit calling it “global warming” and start calling it “climate change.” When you call it “climate change” you don’t even NEED a damn theory any more; all you’ve got to do is demagogue every hot day or every cold day or every tornado or every hurricane or every whatever.

    Being completely wrong is a way of life for these fools”.

  2. L Says:

    I think you’re misunderstanding the point of the mission. I believe the goal is to see whether life ever existed on other planets, not to prove that a group of aliens from the planet of Zargax-9 or whatever seeded Earth for some contrived reason. Religous or atheist, I think most rational people can agree that it’s ridiculous.

    Just my two cents here.

  3. Michael Eden Says:

    most rational people can agree that it’s ridiculous

    Pope L,

    Thank you for taking away from your clearly incredibly important duties long enough to talk to me.

    I’ve never heard from you, and it is an honor and a privilege to be contacted by the official representative of “most rational people.”

    Please don’t take offense, O personification of rationality, but “panspermia” does not HAVE to be “directed panspermia.” The essence of panspermia is that life arose “Somewhere Else” and was transported to earth, thus making atheistic evolution true even if life couldn’t have evolved here on earth. So I find the notion that I’m being “ridiculous” rather ridiculous.

    Again, I’m deeply honored. And I hope that as the Pope of “rational people” you will deign to speak to me again.

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    HL,

    Thanks for your thoughts AND your laughter, HL.

    I am one of those people that other people might see as strange because I’m laughing with no one around me and no headphones. It’s because I’m constantly making myself laugh.

    Or at least that’s the version I’m sticking with.

  5. L Says:

    You misunderstand me Michael. I didn’t mean that you were being ridiculous, I meant that the idea of panspermia is ridiculous. I completely agree with your point that spending tax dollars on trying to prove that would be absurd.

    Apologies for any misunderstandings.

  6. Michael Eden Says:

    L,

    Oh.

    Obviously, I’M the one who needs to apologize.

    I get a LOT of comments and too many of them are from the “other side.” I start seeing enemies everywhere, I guess.

    It is very nice to know that we’re agreed on this panspermia garbage.

    Again, I am actually a big fan of NASA and space exploration and legitimate science.

    The ONLY reason NASA would spend $2.5 BILLION on this mission with this solitary purpose is out of an atheistic ideological pressuposition. The very fact that they sent a craft up to Mars to find this “evidence of life” is itself proof of a GIANT bias.

    Go to Mars. Try to find out everything you can about it. That’s science. Assuming there’s life and spending $2.5 billion to prove it is NOT science. These people have an a priori committment to “discovering” something that only THEY as “the priests of space” are capable of confirming. If they “find” something that the atheists and scientific materialist jump all over as “proof” of their views, will NASA spend another $2.5 billion and allow those who doubt the findings/conclusions to see for themselves? It’s a stupid question, because of COURSE they won’t.

  7. Zeth Says:

    All due respect, I think you got this one wrong. The Mars landing was an extraordinary piece of engineering and a great example of American knowhow at work. I see the Mars explorations as part of our great national effort to push a little farther, to extend the frontiers of science, to flex our national scientific muscle. I was as excited about it as I was about the space program of the 1960s. I realize it costs money to do this, but in the long run the advances in science from projects like this earn the initial investment many, many times over.

    With all due respect to you and your thoughtful commentaries, this is just my take on it.

  8. Michael Eden Says:

    Zeth,

    I agree with every single word that you say. Which is why I here make the point that you missed my point entirely.

    Was the Mars landing an extraordinary piece of engineering and knowhow? Yes. The first Mars rover landings were amazing. JPL had to overcome the entry speed on the one hand and the lack of atmosphere to actually safely LAND the rover. This rover was over FIVE TIMES larger and heavier; it took amazing technology to safely land the thing.

    Do I likewise view what you said was “Mars explorations as part of our great national effort to push a little farther, to extend the frontiers of science, to flex our national scientific muscle”??? Yes, I very much do.

    Do I balk at the cost? Again, that wasn’t the issue with my article.

    In fact NOTHING you said was the issue with my article.

    Let’s say – just for the sake of argument – that there is now no life on Mars and that there never WAS life on Mars. Should we still go to Mars? Not according to NASA and the Curiosity mission, we shouldn’t. The ENTIRE mission is designed to search for life or for the origin of life. THAT’S what I disagree with so vehemently.

    The ENTIRE assumption of this mission in terms of its purpose is inherently atheistic the way it is stated. THAT’S what I disagree with.

    My brother spent most of his working career up to this point in the space and defense sector. He’s been involved in a great many satellites as well as the shuttle program. The couple I live next door to spent their career working for Lockheed. Not only did they work on the U-2 and SR-71 programs, but they have a wall FILLED with Apollo mission stuff. I absolutely LOVE that stuff.

    But we’re getting closer and closer to the Soviets who went to space and said, “I don’t see any God here.” THAT’S what I disagree with.

    I LOVE science. But I hate propaganda. And this mission almost necessarily MUST produce propaganda if it cannot produce “proof of life originating in space.” THAT’S what I disagree with.

    The moon landing was amazing and science lept forward as a result of the moon landing. The purpose for the mission was NOT to “find life” and the trip to Mars should not be to “find life” either. THAT’s my point.

  9. J.W. Wartick Says:

    I find it a very odd motivation for a trip to Mars. I’m not sold on whether or not there is life “out there” somewhere, and I do think that if there is life “out there” it would be probably the greatest scientific discovery ever. Furthermore, it could really broaden our horizons and who knows, the discovery of life could inform us a great deal about a number of things, particularly if it were intelligent life.

    However, I remain extremely skeptical. I don’t think the probabilities are very high, and I certainly don’t buy into panspermia.

    I think NASA promotes the mission as it does because that way some people get excited about it. It’s hard to be as excited for “We’re going to Mars to look closely at some of its really awesome geology” as one would be for “We’re looking for life on mars!”

    Anyway, interesting post. I have a post coming up about alien life.

  10. Michael Eden Says:

    J.W. Wartick,

    Somehow we were able to generate interest in going to the Moon without saying the whole purpose of going was to find the origin of life. I’m just saying that I think we could have justified a trip to Mars without making it all about “proving” panspermia.

    There HAS to be a better reason for this mission that the crap they fed us. There just has to.

  11. confused earthling Says:

    Here’s the link of Bill clinton beating around the bush… sorry i forgot i really am dazzled.

  12. Kyle Creel Says:

    You….well…..are just an idiot.

  13. Michael Eden Says:

    Says a turd who is so mentally incapable he can’t figure out so much as ONE SINGLE reason for his opinions.

    I could be a quarter intelligent as I am and still be a freaking GENIUS compared to you.

    Get lost, drive-by fool.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: