NASA's announcement of flowing water on Mars has brought a typical response from evolutionists: First they trumpet the notion that there might be life on Mars when the discovery has no bearing on the issue and then they ignore the real issue: Where did the salty water come from?
Here, we will look at two quotes and point out the obvious failings of the scientific paper and then the mistakes and lies of the media response.
First, the authors of the study wrote:
— source.
The focus of the paper is to describe the observations, but an explanation of the source of the water is "unknown." They give three ideas, rule them out and then imply that a combination of the ruled-out hypotheses might be at play.
They know that if they provide options, even impossible options, they can avoid the discussion, which the media gleefully seizes upon:
— source.
Of course, they will never arrive at a rational explanation of the water's origin.
The currency of science is predictions.
What these authors need to do is take a page out of Hydroplate proponent Walt Brown's book. Those familiar with his work will know that the NASA announcement is years behind the times. Not only does Brown have an explanation for the source of the water, he has predictions based on the idea.
Evolutionists, on the other hand, will wait for more data to come in before they will dare "predict" anything.
— www.creationscience.com
The evolutionists need to make predictions if the want to have their ideas taken seriously. Something like these:
Here, we will look at two quotes and point out the obvious failings of the scientific paper and then the mistakes and lies of the media response.
First, the authors of the study wrote:
| The origin of water forming the RSL [flows] is not understood, given the extreme aridity of Mars’ surface environment. Water could form by the surface/sub-surface melting of ice, but the presence of near-surface equatorial ice is highly unlikely. Water could also form via deliquescence by hygroscopic salts, although it is unclear how the Martian atmosphere can sufficiently supply water vapor every year to create RSL. The absence of concentrated deliquescent salts would rule out this hypothesis. Another hypothesis is seasonal discharge of a local aquifer, which concentrates salt deposits as the brine evaporates, but then lineae emulating from the tops of local peaks are difficult to explain. It is conceivable that RiSL are forming in different parts of Mars via different formation mechanisms. The new compositional insights reported here from widely separated sites provide essential new clues. |
— source.
The focus of the paper is to describe the observations, but an explanation of the source of the water is "unknown." They give three ideas, rule them out and then imply that a combination of the ruled-out hypotheses might be at play.
They know that if they provide options, even impossible options, they can avoid the discussion, which the media gleefully seizes upon:
| It remains unclear where the water comes from. Theories include deliquescence, melting subsurface ice or even a liquid-water aquifer that feeds the process. Discovering what precisely is causing the phenomenon is a mystery for the next round of investigations, said Michael Meyer, lead scientist for NASA's Mars Exploration Program. |
— source.
Of course, they will never arrive at a rational explanation of the water's origin.
The currency of science is predictions.
What these authors need to do is take a page out of Hydroplate proponent Walt Brown's book. Those familiar with his work will know that the NASA announcement is years behind the times. Not only does Brown have an explanation for the source of the water, he has predictions based on the idea.
Evolutionists, on the other hand, will wait for more data to come in before they will dare "predict" anything.
| Water on Mars Discoveries of water on Mars are now so common that the subject has become the butt of jokes among planetary scientists: “Congratulations — you’ve discovered water on Mars for the 1,000th time!" With so much evidence that water has flowed on Mars, astronomers face a dilemma: Mars’ thin atmosphere and cold temperatures could never have sustained liquid water. They now admit two problems: “We don’t know where the water comes from [and] how does it get replenished.” The answers are obvious to readers of this chapter: 1. Asteroids and comets delivered that water to Mars. This is confirmed by the unusual deuterium-to-hydrogen ratio found in the water locked in Martian clays. That ratio is the same as we determined was in water launched from subterranean chamber when the flood began. 2. Mars’ water does not need to be replenished, because so much water was delivered, and it happened recently (only about 5,000 years ago). Therefore, Mars’ water has had little time to escape. Mars, because of its distance from the Sun, is cold, averaging at least 112°F below freezing. One might think that any liquid water on Mars would quickly freeze, especially at Mars’ low atmospheric pressures. However, comparisons of detailed photographs show that water has flowed on Mars within the last few years — and today, during Martian summers, saltwater appears to flow out of equatorial facing slopes! How could that be? The salty water came from above. Soon after Earth’s global flood, the radiometer effect spiraled asteroids out to the asteroid belt, just beyond Mars. This gave asteroids frequent opportunities to collide with Mars. Comets also impacted Mars. When an icy impact occurred, the impactor’s kinetic energy became heat energy, melted some ice, gouged out a crater, and kicked up into Mars’ thin atmosphere large amounts of debris mixed with water — and complex organic molecules that obviously came recently from life. Then, the dirt and salt-water mixture settled back to the surface in vast layers of thin sheets, especially around the crater. Icy asteroids and comets bombarding Mars released liquid water, which often pooled inside craters or flowed downhill and eroded the planet’s surface. Each impact was like the bursting of a large dam. Brief periods of intense, hot rain and localized flash floods followed. These Martian hydrodynamic cycles quickly “ran out of steam,” because Mars receives little heat from the Sun. While the consequences were large for Mars, the total water was small by Earth’s standards — about twice the water in Lake Michigan. Today, when meteorites strike icy soil on Mars, some of that ice melts. Liquid water then flows down the crater wall, leaving the telltale gullies that have shocked the scientific community. During Martian summers, rising equatorial and mid-latitude temperatures can melt frozen saltwater. Even today, water appears to be draining down 25°–40° slopes in streams that are up to 1,800 feet long and 1–15 feet wide! (Those dark drainage streaks slowly disappear in the fall and winter, only to begin growing the next spring.) Therefore, that liquid must contain dissolved salts that lower the water’s freezing point. Other clues have narrowed the type of dissolved salts to chlorides (sodium, magnesium, or calcium). With so much liquid water draining at lower latitudes, that water must have been placed there recently. When liquid water evaporates on Mars, it ends up near the poles as frost. |
— www.creationscience.com
The evolutionists need to make predictions if the want to have their ideas taken seriously. Something like these:
| PREDICTION 27: Soil in erosion channels on Mars will contain traces of Earthlike soluble compounds, such as salt, from Earth’s preflood subterranean chambers. Soil far from the channels will not. (This prediction was first published in April 2001. Salt was first discovered on Mars in March 2004.) PREDICTION 44: Most sediments taken from layered strata on Mars and returned to Earth will show that they were deposited through Mars’ atmosphere, not through water. PREDICTION 45: As has been discovered on the Moon and apparently on Mercury, frost, rich in heavy hydrogen, will be found within asteroids and in permanently shadowed craters on Mars. |
