Origin of Life on Mars?

Author Message

PostPosted: December 19, 2016 10:15 AM 

Some people hope to find the origin of life by exploring Mars (see
Those people wish to get a lot of funds to prove the theory of evolution. The price tag: the destruction of USA (http://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/2014/03/serious-warning-nations-will-fall-from.html ). The result: No origin of life will be found on any planet in the universe. The blind can never extend their sight. Evolutionists can never accept there is no origin of life except God itself. The nearest to "origin" of life is described in [link]
and in [link]


Posts: xxx

Reply: 1

PostPosted: December 19, 2016 11:35 PM 

If you want to see USA destroyed, support NASA's plans for inhabiting on Mars.


Posts: xxx

Reply: 2

PostPosted: December 21, 2016 12:14 AM 

Evolution and creationism are both false: the real deal is DEVOLUTION. Any trip to a Wall Mart can confirm this.

Dana Johnson

Posts: 1195

Reply: 3

PostPosted: January 10, 2017 11:45 PM 

We are about to get a 'prevolution' shock this year perhaps. Hopefully the new president will wear the science shoes well, and recognize diversity of thought as a style and challenge. Dating life and fossils is as yet not certain nor possible.

Dana Johnson

Posts: 1195

Reply: 4

PostPosted: January 16, 2017 7:29 PM 

I wandered this path for years, and today I am at the 'mega-store' looking for devolution or prevolution, or another solution, to assist in the details here.


John Radogno

Posts: xxx

Reply: 5

PostPosted: January 16, 2017 9:48 PM 

A very interesting creationism site. But if you want to get on the right track you have to get off the wrong path. Viruses are sometimes thought of as a de-evolution from bacteria but the jury is out on that and fossilized virus is next to impossible to find. Homo floresiensis is also considered by some to be an example of de-evolution although it can just as easily be called an evolutionary advancement as their smaller size was much more adaptable to the limited resources of the island they lived on. In a million years if we do not find life on another planet it will still not prove that life is out there because one million light years reach is still a drop in the bucket of the universe's possibilities. If we find life in our solar system and it has the same DNA as found on earth, it would not prove that we are not alone outside our solar system. Only finding DNA different than what we have on earth will prove we are not alone. What this means is that proof that we are not alone can come at any time but proof that we are alone may never come. I do not have any reason to think that our galaxy is fundamentally different than any other galaxy but I can not prove it.

Dana Johnson

Posts: 1195

Reply: 6

PostPosted: January 21, 2017 8:06 PM 

Even the concept of different DNA or other specifics of life's required basics may not be the smoking gun of pointing to a 'separate' source of 'life'. How would a simpler source of 'life' be seen? How would we know of the limits of objects we cannot see?
The idea of prion protein sourcing and origin is just now underway, back walked to bacteria now, rather than complex organisms only, and that took fifteen years of observation and study. What is the 'chicken and egg' of that detail of life's known materials?

It could take a century to find a method of excluding life on space bodies, yet exclusion is really not science as such.

To find a public resolution of the dualism of relative space and time, in addition to the newer measures of 'dark matter' and dark energy, and integrate the misunderstood relationships, would be required to assume we had closed the vaster realm of questions and were then seeking answers as 'seen' or known.

We presume to much when giving science a good score on summing even the definition of life, and the missing content we cannot see or measure well.

As I have commented before, we have to pass from the crib to the streets even to find the concept of neighborhood. Science is a grand procession but the concepts are a review of our former ignorance, not a summation.

To arrive at iron chloride and other salts took more than ten years and forty years designing robot rovers to find that satellite surveying could show us what the rovers did not sense. Water or ice conversion inside iron soils and ices gives us hope for sustenance but we have no precise earth type life measured as proteins yet. More effort will give better tools and techniques.
Origin of life is not the current expectation, I am sure, as preservation over billions of years is not expected.

Dana Johnson

Posts: 1195

Reply: 7

PostPosted: January 21, 2017 9:38 PM 

Made a post here, apparently after the 'timed out' notice, which usually issues after a post, there is a delay to presentation updating. I'll post a couple of examples to show the rudimentary nature of our science state of affairs. These indicate the degree of travel necessary to find the presumed limits of common life on Earth, not even presuming how it can be assumed as similar to life on another space object.
I may have to reissue the prior post from tonight.



Interesting that the formation of the second linked article is based upon iron, chloride, and organic associated common chemistry. What do we assume is life?
Mars has an active iron chloride salt and ice process resolved by satellite sensing. It appears to be altering the slopes of Mars, repeating the process, and interactively isolated within domains of active chemistry which change both geology chemistry, but the state of water ice, giving a by-product we haven't been close enough to observe directly.
Whatever we find it will be only by direct observation over decades of research there on Mars.

It required forty years and much technology to get to Mars only to pass by all the results suggesting life or similar activity. We still can't get to the active sites of even this one chemistry supposition forty-five years after it was designed conceptually .
We need dozens of rover landings to find a thousand additional mysteries to solve.
Finding life or undetected chemistry is a long slow path.

As the source of life not found cannot be designed well, how can exclusion or denial be possible? On Earth we are in the first few centuries of 'real' science.

When I presented views on Earth of hematite layered spheroidalism shapes exhibiting salt encrustations as a product of the throughput passage of complex salutes or molecular chemistry, or other life-like interactions, I got not even a single comment or observation or detailing by contributors on this blog.
How can we presume either no life, or the source of life on Mars when we have no interest in the similar processes on Earth? The comedy is similar to the background of the madness in the current presidential campaign of 2016-2017.
We should be building a base of understanding and resolution, yet the basics are not yet explored on Earth.
Will my prior post of tonight be presented eventually, or is it 'disappeared'?
Are the 'berries' still a contender for a detailed chemistry process similar to Earth type hematite spheroidalism, or is there agreement that life was not involved in both Earth and Mars examples of similar physical results?
The Earth examples are in relative association with oil and gas sources.

John Radogno

Posts: xxx

Reply: 8

PostPosted: January 22, 2017 7:23 PM 

You make very good points. I think there are a lot more fans of MRB than who actually post, but are interested in the discourse and the pictures. Most of us are not trained professional scientists.
There are better, more sophisticated roves to come and hopefully one day we will see evidence that confirms some of the things we have seen and suspect as evidence may be confirmed.
One theory I like (but cannot prove) is that anywhere life could exist, it will exist. We have a lot of evidence that Mars at one time a hospitable environment for life, possibly even must-cellular. We know from Earth that some life can evolve to survive in very extreme environments. So I would never give up on finding it on Mars.

Join the conversation:

Very Happy Smile Sad Surprised
Shocked Confused Cool Laughing
Mad Razz Embarassed Crying or Very Sad
Evil or Very Mad Twisted Evil Rolling Eyes Wink
Powered by MTSmileys