NASA’s Search for Life on Mars — Futile?

The whole world is aware that NASA’s latest Mars rover, named Perseverance, has successfully landed. Here’s their headline: Touchdown! NASA’s Mars Perseverance Rover Safely Lands on Red Planet. Their article says, with our bold font:

About the size of a car, the 2,263-pound (1,026-kilogram) robotic geologist and astrobiologist will undergo several weeks of testing before it begins its two-year science investigation of Mars’ Jezero Crater. While the rover will investigate the rock and sediment of Jezero’s ancient lakebed and river delta to characterize the region’s geology and past climate, a fundamental part of its mission is astrobiology, including the search for signs of ancient microbial life.

PhysOrg also has headlines about it — for example: Touchdown: NASA’s Perseverance rover ready to search for life on Mars. Their article says:

After seven months in space, NASA’s Perseverance rover overcame a tense landing phase with a series of perfectly executed maneuvers to gently float down to the Martian soil Thursday and embark on its mission to search for signs of past life.

Search for signs of life? But why bother? Don’t they realize that we already know the answer? Well, not everyone knows, but some certainly do. A few days ago we wrote No Life on Venus & Hambo Always Knew It. Yes, that was about Venus, not Mars, but the principle is the same.

We quoted Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else:

[L]ife on other planets is not something we expect when we start our thinking based on the Word of God, what it teaches about the uniqueness of earth, and it being created for life (while the heavens were created for signs and seasons and to bring glory to God).

[…]

The Bible is true — eventually it will be vindicated, every single time. … We can boldly put our confidence in God and in his true Word.

So there you are. Someone should tell NASA to stop wasting money and just ask ol’ Hambo about life on Mars. He knows! And now you do too.

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

18 responses to “NASA’s Search for Life on Mars — Futile?

  1. Theodore J Lawry

    If there is no life on Mars, then I guess we can’t send Ken Ham there to look for it!

  2. Craig Shearer

    And if we do find it, Ken will rationalise that the Bible said that all along.

  3. We should ask Kenny Boy to quote the chapter and verse that tells us there is no other place in the universe where life has ever existed.

  4. @Rsg: ah, but Ol’Hambo doesn’t need to. He’s fourth in line, immediately after the Holy Trinity and that provides the necessary authority to draw the correct conclusions about topics like this one. Sola Scriptura doesn’t apply to him.

  5. Exactly correct, retiredsciguy and FrankB. Ham has no authority and no rational reason to say, “[L]ife on other planets is not something we expect when we start our thinking based on the Word of God.” He is consulting nothing but his own hubris, his certainty that he, Ken Ham, is the centre and focus of the Universe.

    The Bible says exactly nothing about the possibility of life on other worlds. Can you make an argumentum ad silencio from this? That because the Bible doesn’t mention it, it doesn’t exist? A moment’s thought will dispell that idiocy. The Bible doesn’t mention the automobile or the printing press or Australia or the Himalayas either. Are we to conclude that they therefore don’t exist?

    In fact, the Bible says nothing about the planets other than Venus (“the morning star”) and Earth, which is, of course, not treated as a planet, but as the centre of the Universe. Jupiter, Mars, Saturn and maybe Mercury are mentioned by implication as kinda sorta pagan deities, to which sacrifice is forbidden, but that’s it. No observation is made of them or their movements – Ptolemy was streets ahead of “Biblical astronomy”. The Babylonians of their own day knew vastly more. To the writers of the Bible, the stars and planets were points of light in the sky, some of which moved relative to the others. but most of which were fixed in recogniseable formations, that by their rising and setting could be used to fix the times of the seasons.

    But other worlds? Places where humans could possibly tread? Suns like our own? Unthinkable distances? Incredible numbers? What nonsense was this? And as for other settings for life, that is no way to think. How can anyone be concerned with such things?

    See, apart from his own hubris, that’s what Ham is on about. Sure, he thinks that he should be recognised as the ultimate authority and exemplar of the true purpose of the Universe, but a vital component of that is neglect of any other concern whatsoever. It annoys him that some people – godless, heathens, heretics, unbelievers – are actually interested in knowing things that don’t interest Ken Ham. That isn’t right, thinks Ken.

    It’s a clue to the internal world of Ken Ham. To Ham, other people are, or at least, should be, reflections of him. Forget being made in God’s image – they are made in Ken Ham’s. Hubris? This is almost solipsism. Perhaps it’s a bit better than outright psychopathy. Ham is prepared to admit that other people exist and that they can have concerns of their own. But it’s still not any basis for any sort of relationship between equals.

    But a relationship between equals is the last thing Ken Ham wants, and his entire career confirms that.

  6. @Dave Luckett
    There are hints in the Bible about the stars, particularly the moving lights of the heavens. Because they are moving, that is sign of life. And there are occasional texts in the Bible which say that the heavens have language. They speak or sing. Yes, that could be interpreted as symbolic, rather than literal. But it may be a reaction against the polytheist idea that the stars are gods, the Bible saying rather that the stars are living intelligences which praise God YHWH.

  7. TomS: No sane person ever heard a planet or a star speak or sing, or the Heavens actually declare anything intelligibly. To use such expressions is necessarily a literary device, and not literal description, and I think the writers of the Bible were as well aware of that as you or I.

  8. Charley Horse X

    I recall Dan Quayle’s comment on Mars after being appointed chairman of the National Space Council…..”Mars is essentially in the same orbit… Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe”.
    He was famous for some other comments such as “What a waste it is to lose one’s mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is”. “It’s time for the human race to enter the solar system”.

  9. Charley Horse X: Oh, c’mon! He didn’t really say that….

    Did he?

  10. Yes, Dan Quayle said it. Visit his Wikipedia article and search for “Mars.” There it is.

  11. It drives me nuts that so many reports, and mission scientists, refer to looking for evidence of “microbial life.” Sure, it’s the only reference we have, but Mars ain’t your grandfather’s Earth, know what I mean, Vern?

    There are no Universal laws of biology, to my knowledge, that requires or even suggests that a cellular form of life is required or even common. It’s just the way we did it. That said, I’m all jiggy with the science and exploration of Mars unfolding. Great times ahead!

  12. @docbill:

    Since we only have one model of biological development to go by, and we know it worked, it makes sense to look for the same signs elsewhere. It figures that if life developed somewhere else, if would likely follow the same pattern — start small, and build up from there. In order to build a Lego castle, you gotta invent the Lego brick first.

    Because of the nature of the carbon atom, life elsewhere would most likely also be carbon-based — but not 100% certainly. Who knows — at a high enough temperature, a silicon-based life form may have developed. Maybe on Venus?

  13. Another question for Ken Ham, not directly related to this thread, but close —

    If there truly is but one God, why did he give us so many different religions?

  14. @Rsg: he didn’t. Sinful man invented all religions but one – the one Ol’Hambo promotes.

  15. There are those who claim that their belief is NOT a religion. As I recall, this is in the Jack Chick comic, Big Daddy.

  16. @FrankB: But, hey — the Guy’s supposed to be omnipotent, right? That would mean He (or She, or It) could control all of our thoughts, if He, She, or It wished. So, if God exists, why didn’t He (Etc.) just put the thought in everyone’s head to have everyone accept the idea of His existence and His omnipotence? Just think of all the wars that have been fought (and are still being fought!) over religion — they would not have happened!

    It makes so much sense, it’s hard to believe He would not have done things that way — if He existed.

    Disclaimer — I’m no philosopher of religion, nor do I intend to ever be one. I freely admit that I most likely am not the first to promote this idea, but as I stated, I wouldn’t know because I’ve never really studied the subject. I’ve concentrated my learning efforts on trying to understand how the REAL universe works, not worrying about what’s going on inside other people’s minds.

    I only object when some of those other people start trying to control what’s going on inside MY mind, or promote ideas of how the universe works that are contrary to the available evidence. Ken Ham is a prime example, as are the venalities within the Discovery Institute. I thank the Curmudgeon for his efforts to expose the error of their philosophy.

  17. @Rsg: “That would mean …..”
    The answer is free will, which is the greater good. When it suits him Ol’Hambo is a utilitarian. For the justification of that inconsistency I refer to the fact that Ol’Hambo is fourth in line after the Holy Trinity.
    Neither am I a philosopher, let alone of religion, but still this

    “the error of their philosophy”
    I recognize as way too flattering. Philosophy requires consistency and coherence, what Ol’Hambo produces does not. But I wholeheartedly agree with you thanking our dear SC.

  18. He has a career!?