On Fri, 9 Aug 1996 22:33:00 -0700 (PDT), Randy Landrum wrote:
[..]
SS>What is the consensus (if there even is one) among YECs about life
>on other planets? I'm assuming YEC wouldn't buy anything about this
>Martian meteorite anyway since radiometric dating is involved in
>determining its age, etc.
RL>There very well may be life on other planets. Since I am in
>your words a YEC (or anti-theistic revisionist); And since there is a
>lot of speculation going on here. My theory is that the rock is not
>from Mars but from the Earth. A catastrophic event here on Earth
>could easily send a rock hurling through space only to re-enter
>the atmosphere.
I understand the most well-established part of the evidence is that
this meteorite did come from Mars:
"As to the origin of the meteorite, the researchers have little doubt
that it was Martian. They base their conclusion largely on the
composition of gases trapped in tiny pockets within the meteorite.
The NASA team found a strikingly close match between the constituents
of the rock gases and those in the current Martian atmosphere, which
the unmanned Viking landers sampled in 1976 transmitting the data
back to Earth." (Jaroff L., "Life on Mars", Time, August 19, 1996,
p79)
"A recovery team found the meteorite in 1984 on an annual mission to
Antarctica, in the icy wasteland of the Allan Hills. Its
designation, ALH84001, reflects that origin. But the meteorite's
journey began 4 billion years earlier, when it was part of the crust
of Mars. (Scientists know this because when the rock is heated, it
still gives off a mix of gases unique to the Martian atmosphere.) "
(Rogers A., "Come in Mars", Newsweek-The Bulletin, August 20, 1996,
p72)
RL>I was not aware that when Viking landed on Mars any life was
>found. No doubt the this rock will be the justification to spend
>billions to prove otherwise.
Yes. At the risk of sounding a bit of a cynic, I can't help being a
bit suspicious of the (perhaps unconscious) possible motivation of
funding for a troubled space program. It is well known that NASA has
been having its problems and with a possible new Republican president
who may be susceptible to pressure from conservative groups to scrub
SETI type research, it may have been a case of "now or never"? Ross,
who is not opposed to life on Mars, nevertheless questions the
timing of the announcement:
"My third observation has less to do with the discovery than with the
timing of its announcement. NASA's budget has again come up for
congressional consideration, and as NASA officials admit, this
"discovery" has sparked more public support for NASA than anything
since our astronauts' first moon walk. One of the newspaper
headlines read, "NASA Vows All-Out Study of Mars Findings."9 Such a
study would of course mean multi-billion dollar explorations of Mars'
surface. While I see much to be gained from greater understanding of
Martian geology, for instance, I see the potential for waste if
attention is riveted on this life-origin issue. A safer and much
more cost-effective way to search for life's remains on Mars would be
to look for additional Martian meteorites in Antarctica and elsewhere
on Earth. Well established solar system models suggests that several
in addition to the dozen already identified should be here for the
finding." (Ross H., "Martian Meteorite Shows Signs of Life On
Mars?", <http://www.reasons/reasons/meteor.html>, August 1996)
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------