AIG’s Head Buried in the Sands of Mars

The first creationist response to NASA’s announcement of flowing surface water on Mars comes from the creation scientists at Answers in Genesis (AIG) — the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo). They just posted Mars Water: Much Ado About Very Little.

AIG’s author is Danny Faulkner. Here’s their biographical information about him. They say he taught physics and astronomy until he joined AIG. His undergraduate degree is from Bob Jones University. A few excerpts from his new article should be sufficient. The bold font was added by us:

In the search for life elsewhere in the universe, liquid water is the Holy Grail. Liquid water is absolutely essential for life, so in the estimation of many scientists, the presence of liquid water on another planet at the very least opens the door to the possibility of life there. While water is a common substance in the universe, the earth is the only place that we know for certain where liquid water exists. That is, until Monday, September 28, 2015, when NASA officials announced in a press conference the discovery of evidence of liquid water on the surface of Mars. Or, maybe not.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Then, after some technical gyrations, Faulkner says:

While the data are not direct evidence for liquid water, it is indirect evidence for liquid water. So, for now many scientists are convinced that at least small traces of liquid water seasonally exist on the Martian surface.

Faulkner is a skeptic, except for what’s in the bible. Let’s read on:

In many respects, this is not a new story. We have known for decades that water once was abundant on the Martian surface. At one time, there was a northern hemisphere ocean as much as a mile deep. Planetary scientists now agree that there was a global or near-global flood on Mars, where liquid water, if it exists at all, is extremely rare today. Yet these same scientists would scoff at the idea that there once was a global Flood on Earth, a planet awash in water.

Lordy, lordy — he managed to bring Noah’s Flood into his article. He continues:

Given that liquid water once was abundant on Mars, it should be no surprise that at least a few vestiges of that largess may still exist in cloistered corners of Mars. At least such a thing is possible in a worldview where Mars is only thousands of years old, not billions of years. Planetary scientists generally think that Mars has been dry for two billion years or more. The question is, could significant liquid water have survived since this time?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! If there’s water on Mars, that means Mars is young! This is great creation science. Here’s more:

Furthermore, even if bacteria were found on Mars today or it were shown that bacteria existed on Mars in the past, that would not prove that evolution occurred there, any more than the existence of bacteria on the earth proves that evolution has occurred here. All such a discovery would prove is that bacteria either existed in the past or now exist on Mars.

They’re getting ready for what may be NASA’s next discovery, and their response will be: Bacteria don’t prove much of anything! Moving along:

No one has ever observed the spontaneous generation of bacteria or the evolution of bacteria into something else. Besides, bacteria are a long way from conscious, intelligent life.

Faulkner ain’t no kin to no bacteria! And now we come to the end:

The continued hype about water and possible life on Mars is all wishful thinking of evolutionists desperate for some evidence that the evolution of life has occurred somewhere.

Get that? NASA’s announcement shows that evolutionists are the ones who are desperate — not creationists. AIG’s creation scientists say we can forget about Mars. NASA has found nothing. Nothing at all.

Copyright © 2015. 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

24 responses to “AIG’s Head Buried in the Sands of Mars

  1. He/they are running scared. Denial is their buzzword.

  2. Pay not attention to the water on Mars, or the man behind the curtain, either.

  3. Sez Danny:

    “While the data are not direct evidence for liquid water, it is indirect evidence for liquid water.”

    Wait a minute! Did I just see…?

    Yes! YES! That’s AiG admitting that there is such a thing as indirect evidence! He came right out with it. No eyewitness reported this. It’s a – gasp! inference from physical, material fact. And there’s Faulkner saying it’s real! He’s admitting it!

    Prepare the stake! Gather the firewood!

  4. Furthermore, even if bacteria were found on Mars today or it were shown that bacteria existed on Mars in the past, that would not prove that evolution occurred there, any more than the existence of bacteria on the earth proves that evolution has occurred here. All such a discovery would prove is that bacteria either existed in the past or now exist on Mars.

    It’s no good. I’ve been beating my head repeatedly on my desk and I still can’t work out what his point is. The creationist keep harping on about how it’s mathematically impossible for life to have originated, but now Danny’s saying that, if it proves to have done so not just on one planet but on two, that’s no biggie?

  5. “The earth is the only place that we know for certain where liquid water exists”

    He must have missed the news about the global subsurface ocean on Enceladus: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4718

  6. @realthog:
    When I was reading that, I was expecting that he would suggest that if bacteria were to be found on Mars, then they were transported from Earth.
    I think that any one of us could do a better job of defending creationism. If we would not fall into the fatal flaw of introducing reasoning. They wouldn’t want to encourage that, now, would they!
    One can’t control the results of reasoning.

  7. What soul-crushing drudgery it must be to work at AIG and spend all your time trying to quell enthusiasm about scientific discoveries.

  8. Charles Deetz ;)

    “No one has ever observed the spontaneous generation of bacteria or the evolution of bacteria into something else. “

    Was waiting for the ‘but we have an eyewitness account of the generation of bacteria’ in the following sentence. But wait, his historical, scientific book never mentions bacteria.

    Maybe Danny’s thinking that if it isn’t in the creation story, it doesn’t really exist or matter in the story of the world.

  9. @TomS

    When I was reading that, I was expecting that he would suggest that if bacteria were to be found on Mars, then they were transported from Earth.

    I tried desperately to parse his comment that way, but it didn’t seem to make too much sense that this was his meaning. I mean, bacteria are themselves pretty evolved little guys, what with their flagella and all, so finding evidence of them on Mars would be a pretty major support of evolution. Of course, you could in desperation make the defense that the aftermaths of meteoritic impacts might have transferred bacterial spores from one planet to the other (more likely Mars to Earth than vice versa), but that still doesn’t help his argument.

  10. @Charles Deetz

    If you think about it, Noah would have had no real difficulty fitting two bacteria onto the Ark.

  11. Faulkner gives us (with enumerations added):
    At one time, there was a northern hemisphere (1) ocean as much as a mile deep. Planetary scientists now agree that there was a (2)global or near-global flood on Mars, where liquid water, if it exists at all, is extremely rare today. Yet these same scientists would scoff at the idea that there once was a (3)global Flood on Earth, a planet awash in water.

    Only in the non-sequitur filled mind of a creationist can one go from (1) ocean to (2) flood and then to (3) Noah’s flood. Also notice the rhetorical not-so-sleight of hand when he states the non-controversial (1) ocean and then with (2) “flood” attributes it to planetary scientists.

    I can do the same thing: Sometimes when I wash my car there is a rivulet of excess water flowing down our driveway. Geologists agree that rivulets create erosion and this was the way the Grand Canyon was created. Yet these same scientists scoff at the idea that I created the Grand Canyon with my water hose.

  12. Well, old Faulkner is either a liar or incredibly stupid. Given that he has a PhD, I’ll report and you decide.

    No data or reports support Faulkner’s conclusions. No, there was not a “near global flood” on Mars; the amount of water has been estimated at about 19% of the surface (the Atlantic Ocean occupies about 17% by comparison) and the volume of water was about that of the Arctic Ocean.

    So, no global flood, no hint of a global flood. Please, stop with the Flud which is disproved by simple geometry.

    And, no, Faulkner, there is no model and certainly AiG has no model that accounts for desiccating Mars in a few thousand years. Hey, AiG, we’re laughing at you! Please, go to Dallas and bring your real astrophysicist back, Jason Lisle. Now, that’s a guy who could lie his [edited out] off!

  13. Creationists aside, the intriguing proposition is that water, brine or whatever, has persisted in the subsurface of Mars for 4.5 billion years. So, if some kind of reproductive cyclic chemical reaction (life) got started in the early days, as it did on Earth, it might persist today in the subsurface freeze-thaw environment. That would be a fascinating discovery.

  14. I echo Sean’s comment and add that Jupiter’s moon Europa and Ganymede have been proven to have oceans under their crusts.

    I think looking for life on Mars is a dead end though. At best there are fossils. I’m not saying no further investigation is warranted, sure check it out, but the main thrust of Mars should be for human exploration.

  15. @realthog:
    Only animals were taken by pairs on the Ark. Only air-breathing animals, according to some Arkeologists, only air-breathing vertebrates.

    Some times, the creationists seem to get panicky over things that ought to be no big deal. There is plenty of water in lots of places, on moons and comets in the Solar System, and various nebulae. The Bible says nothing about the origins of water on Earth or elsewhere.

  16. I can’t understand why creationists should be concerned over whether or not there’s water on Mars. If Mars, as they say, was created by their god then so was the water and the microbes. If the only interest they have is its relevance to creationism why bother pretending to give a scientific opinion? I don’t think, given the history of religious scientific statements, many will heed what’s been written in that article.

  17. I suspect that AIG is getting ready to cover its ass. Should actual direct evidence of present-day life on Mars be found, then after the usual fulminations about how it’s fake, creationists will just say it proves that the Creator decreed life into existence on more worlds than one–but that only Earth has life which possesses a soul.

  18. Ashley pretends to be surprised: “This from a man who claims to ‘love’ science.”
    If someone claims to love science there is an excellent chance he/she rejects science in at least some respect. It’s the religious counterpart of “I’m not a racist because one of my best friends is a ni**er.”
    Personally I don’t love science. I think parts highly boring, genetics being one example. Other parts are so difficult that I simple can’t love them. The thing is of course that I accept the results of scientific research.

  19. The title of this post (“AIG’s Head Buried in the Sands of Mars”) came as a shock. I thought he was still living in Northern Kentucky.

  20. Even if bacteria are found on Mars, the mystical minds will claim it was brought there by one of the exploration craft sent from Earth. Something like a unique protein will have to be found before they move the goal posts and focus the denial on something else.

  21. Ah, at least Ol’ Hambo works hard for his money ….

  22. @Dean I would be absolutely gobsmacked if exobiochemestry looked anything like Earth biochemistry, except superficially in the exchange and transport of energy. I’m sure there are many ways to skin those cats, even if they do have 6 legs.