Klinghoffer: Life on Mars? No Chance!

The news came out yesterday. This is from PhysOrg: Curiosity rover finds conditions once suited for ancient life on Mars. One brief excerpt will give you the general idea:

An analysis of a rock sample collected by NASA’s Curiosity rover shows ancient Mars could have supported living microbes. Scientists identified sulfur, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and carbon — some of the key chemical ingredients for life — in the powder Curiosity drilled out of a sedimentary rock near an ancient stream bed in Gale Crater on the Red Planet last month.

Also, the news is up at the NASA website. Their press release dated yesterday is titled: NASA Rover Finds Conditions Once Suited for Ancient Life on Mars . It says:

“A fundamental question for this mission is whether Mars could have supported a habitable environment,” said Michael Meyer, lead scientist for NASA’s Mars Exploration Program at the agency’s headquarters in Washington. “From what we know now, the answer is yes.”

But those materialist Darwinist scientists can’t fool that noted astrobiologist, David Klinghoffer. His reaction —NASA: Past Habitability of Mars Is “In the Bag” — is posted at the blog of the Discoveroids. Both he and they are described in the Cast of Characters section of our Intro page.

A month ago we surveyed the positions of a few major creationist outfits, including the Discoveroids, on the possibility of life on other worlds. Some grudgingly admit that it’s possible, others dismiss the idea altogether. Perhaps that’s because although scripture mentions the “sun, the moon, and the stars,” it provides no substantive information about them. Planets aren’t even referred to as being different from stars. The New Testament never even mentions the planets, and the Old Testament mentions them only once, in a negative reference to priests who “burned incense unto Baal, to the sun, and to the moon, and to the planets.”

That pretty much leaves the creationists free to make up whatever they want, and their positions are inconsistent. See Creationists & Life on Other Worlds, and also ICR’s New Position on Alien Life. The Discoveroids are pretty much committed to the “life on Earth only” dogma. Consistent with that, Klinghoffer says, with bold font added by us and his links omitted:

NASA is trumpeting news from the Curiosity rover that newly analyzed Martian rock gives evidence that the planet, billions of years ago, was hospitable to life.

The fools! Klinghoffer is no stranger to this issue (see Klinghoffer: Life on Mars Is a Darwinist Fantasy). Then he purports to quote John Grotzinger from Caltech:

Grotzinger said Curiosity’s scientists will focus on the systematic search for organic carbon now that they had “the issue of habitability in the bag.”

In response, Klinghoffer says:

“In the bag”? That sounds rather over-confident, given the challenges of chemical evolution, don’t you think? Have a quick read of Casey Luskin’s “Top Five Problems with Current Origin-of-Life Theories.” And that’s on a planet we know with certainty to have been capable of sustaining life.

He cites Casey as an authority. BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Klinghoffer’s final paragraph is a real gem:

Let’s quiet down a bit, space agency. If your pre-reading age kids sometimes play with magnetic letters, they’ve got the “elemental ingredients” in hand (in the bag?) to produce a Shakespearean sonnet. But don’t go home expecting to find “Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?” spelled out on the refrigerator door.

So there you are. Who ya gonna believe — NASA or the Discoveroids?

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

12 responses to “Klinghoffer: Life on Mars? No Chance!

  1. Marshall Ney

    Yes yes. Kasey and Clinglestuper have once again outsmarted NASA based on the asteroid extensive scientific library of “peer reviewed research” credentials. Quite the coup for the wedgies..

  2. Klinghoffer: “In the bag”? That sounds rather over-confident, given the challenges of chemical evolution, don’t you think?

    I’ll give him the benefit of doubt and just say that Klingcougher doesn’t read very well. NASA isn’t saying that life actually did exist on Mars; they’re just saying that the elements necessary for life can be found there.

    “Let’s quiet down a bit” yourself, Klings.

  3. Besides the fact that the argument doesn’t make much sense scientifically. It doesn’t even make sense logically given ID’s Theory.

    Wouldn’t they want to find life on mars? It might actually support the ID theory because it could show that mars microbes seeded earth or that the microbes were seeded from somewhere else. Or am I refering to the wrong version of ID theory. They seem to change who or what the designer is and when he applied his magic on a daily basis.

    Today it’s that the designer only designed things on earth.

  4. The gaps to shove their god into are getting smaller and smaller…….

    Personally I don’t think Curiosity will find signs of current or past life on Mars but it’s fun to watch these people squirm over the thought of it happening, immature on my part but I can’t help it.

  5. Klinghoffer has actually been to Mars and has surveyed the planet first-hand. Therefore he knows what he’s talking about. Klinghoffer, anyone, anyone, Klinghoffer?

  6. doodlebugger

    “NASA Rover Finds Conditions Once Suited for Ancient Life on Mars”
    No wonder Klinglestupid isn’t a scientist. I’m looking for where “in the bag” can be read to mean there was life on Mars. Sciguy hits the nail on the head above. Klingledufus has a reading comprehension problem.
    That may play a role in his creationism tendencies, but his articles also reveal a very low character level besides the comprehension and
    logic issues.
    But, his audience is in the same sack of s#/” he is.
    Its perfect.

  7. Taking a position on life elsewhere, pro or con, is contra to the current ID “it’s not a religion” ruse. Kling and his cohorts go to great lengths to reinforce their lie that ID is only about detecting design in nature, and that ID claims nothing about the nature or purposes of the designer. Thus, ID would make no claim about where and when life might have been created.

    However, to hold forth that life was only created on Earth is to make a very specific claim about the designer – either the designer’s purposes (or perhaps the designer’s limits) – and in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, it is fundamentally a religious claim.

    Perhaps Kling is trying to repair some of the bridges between the DI and the other creationist outfits.

  8. docbill1351

    Some years ago the Tooters were all Go-Go-Gonzalez the “habitable zone” intelligent design creationist astronomer (now teaching geocentrism at some podunk bible college) that Ooooooooh the Earth was sooooooooo special because it was like Goldilocks, except for the being menaced bears part, Oh and did I say special? That was when there was maybe one exoplanet known and it was way, way outside of a habitable zone plus a gas giant to boot. Oooooooooh, we’re still so special!! The Tooters were in rapture at the specialness of themselves.

    Well, fast forward a few years and we have discovered thousands of exoplanets and, now, a bunch of “rocky” exoplanets right in the middle, just right, habitable zone and suddenly we’re not so special and the Tooters went right off the whole idea. Now they’re pissed off because astronomers have yet to discover unicorns on ANY of the exoplanets! What, no unicorns? Come back when you’ve found some unicorns, buddy!

    Finally, the Tooters response to über-Crackpot Wickramasinghe’s panspermia “discovery” will be delightful. I can hardly wait for their breathless confirmation that the Intelligent Designer, blessed be he, threw rocks at the Earth and here we are. Brings a tear to me eye, it does.

  9. Well, how dare NASA try to actually analyze the data that it has collected!?!? What is NASA thinking?!?! Why, it takes a great and vast intellect such as Klinghoffer and the other Tooters to understand these… these… complicated things. Can’t they see that?!?!

    Okay, really, it’s not a coincidence that “tooters” is synonymous for flatulence.

  10. //// Wouldn’t they want to find life on mars?/////

    No, if past or present microbial life is discovered on Mars, they’ll have to explain why the designer, blessed be he (lol), stopped at just making some microbes. Why didn’t he create another earth-like biome teeming with complex beings. By contrast, such a discovery would confirm another prediction of science – that life can arise on any world given the right conditions. In short, their ID foolishness will suffer another crippling blow. So they don’t want that to happen. at. all.

  11. docbill1351 says: “Some years ago the Tooters were all Go-Go-Gonzalez the “habitable zone” intelligent design creationist astronomer (now teaching geocentrism at some podunk bible college) that Ooooooooh the Earth was sooooooooo special because it was like Goldilocks”

    Yes, one of their own wrote The Privileged Planet. They use the alleged uniqueness of the Earth as an argument for design. These things don’t just happen all over the place, you know. It requires intent.

  12. Pete Moulton

    Ed: “Kling and his cohorts go to great lengths to reinforce their lie that ID is only about detecting design in nature…”

    Great lengths, perhaps, but still not great enough. Maybe they could start by constructing an actual testable hypothesis, and follow that up with…what was the word?…oh, yeah: research. Yeah, that’s it. Maybe they could develop some sort of real scientific program…

    No, on second thought, cargo cult science is all they’re capable of.