MENU

The Fossilized Pickle Mystery (Video)

Monday, June 1st, 2020

Creationist Hypothesis – “No life on Mars.”

Thursday, June 26th, 2008

For more than 30 years one robotic machine after another have landed to explore the rusty martian surface trying to unlock its geological mysteries and solve NASA’s perplexing questions: Can Mars support life? And more importantly: Is there life on the red planet? Recently in the news, NASA announced that salt and other akaline minerals have been discovered that could in fact support life. But will NASA find life…ever?

Before we go any further let me say that Evolutionists criticize Creationists for not using their unique faith based understanding of science to make predictions.  It is true that the evolutionary model does predict and it seems that many of their predictions come “true.” But I would like to take this opportunity, as a creationist, to make my own prediction regarding life on Mars. Allow me first to qualify my prediction.

My prediction is based on the Word of God.  I’m basing my prediction on biblical references that state God alone is life and God alone creates life and places life where He may. That Earth is the only planet that God created life in the solar system.

Therefore not on the moon or Venus or the moons of Jupiter or Saturn will we find life.  God does not create life by starting things off with some microbes or algae. His distinctive signature is the ability to get it right the first time with all the complexity, interdependent systems and recycling mechanisms necessary for an entire world of living things to stay in balance and thrive.

Therefore, as hard as NASA tries to find life on Mars, my prediction is NO life will be found on Mars. So we may find soil, yes, even water perhaps, but no life. There are no half baked “in the beginning” metaphorically evolutionary “genesises” going on in our solar system. Not even a exo-microbe will be discovered is my creationist, arm-chair, scientific prediction.

That said, I do believe based on a few passages in the scriptures, that there are planets with entire complete eco-systems with beings similar to us throughout the universe that God created. But there’re not close enough in proximity for us to interface with.

Should this prediction be found correct, does this prove the Bible is true?  No, however, let it be known that a young earth creationist has made a “scientific” prediction based on a young earth creationist model of how life got here and how it is sustained.

Again, simply put “Mars does not have life.”

John F. Adolfi.

5/1/2018 update…10 years later and still no proof of life on Mars…because there is none.

 

What is “Admissible Evidence” for a Hypothesis?

Friday, December 21st, 2007

We noticed last time that “science” is unwilling to allow for an intelligent designer, no matter where the facts are leading. I say “unwilling” rather than “unable” because I think the rules that govern the permissibility of evidence in science are questionable or unintentionally biased.

But let’s be fair. Scientists are proud of science being a testable, provable, repeatable process of learning; as we all should be. And evolutionists would say that it is necessary to exclude anything other than natural explanations precisely because they are not provable and testable. But the question then arises, what exactly does it mean to be provable or testable?

Take gravity  something we can’t see. I can drop a set of keys and it will always go down. Is that what makes it provable? Or is it because I can quantify its speed as it falls? Is that what makes it testable? Why can’t things we can see, such as the widespread existence of symmetry and function as evidence? Do I have to measure the frequency of it to legitimize it? What governs the admissibility of it as evidence? Why should it be denied as evidence when it never used to be?

If I wanted to determine if a ship, car or plane (something we’ll pretend none of us has ever seen) was designed or had evolved, it would seem reasonable to include the following observations or facts:

  • It has a complex system to convert fuel to energy.
  • It needs functioning almost frictionless, symmetrical propeller, wheel or wing assemblies.
  • They are aerodynamically fit for the environment they use.
  • Perfectly fitting seats (seemingly designed for a human) in a beautiful, red Lamborghini or the luxurious housing area of sleek yacht.

So let’s compare that with what we see in the animal kingdom; perhaps a fish, cheetah or a parrot. We very quickly see that the same facts that convince us that the mechanical object was designed are seen in the animals.

  • It has a complex system to convert fuel to energy.
  • It needs functioning almost frictionless, symmetrical fins, leg or wing assemblies.
  • They are aerodynamically fit for the environment they use.
  • Peacocks, swans, leopards, polar bears, colorful fish on a stunning reef.

From one type of animal to another, we see beauty, grace, strength, and suitability to their environment, designs, symmetry and patterns. Now tell me again why these facts are not admissible as evidence that these living objects were designed? Why can’t science let facts lead us to whatever hypothesis seems the most logical? Why is it logical to deduce that a complex, aerodynamically perfect jet fighter was designed by an intelligent being and the living version of a hawk, is not?