NASA Sued for Failure to Examine 'Sudden' Appearance of a White Rock as Evidence of Life on Mars
Follow the Daily Galaxy
Add Daily Galaxy to igoogle page AddThis Feed Button Join The Daily Galaxy Group on Facebook Follow The Daily Galaxy Group on twitter
 

« "Rogue Asteroids the Norm in Our Solar System" --MIT & Paris Observatory | Main | "Kepler Object of Interest" --A Major Step in the Search for a Twin Solar System (Today's Most Popular) »

January 31, 2014

NASA Sued for Failure to Examine 'Sudden' Appearance of a White Rock as Evidence of Life on Mars

 

Pia17761-1 (1)

 

Earlier this week NASA reported that it was being sued because the space agency had failed to conduct a proper examination of a white rock as "life" on Mars, which had mysteriously appeared in front of the Opportunity rover. The lawsuit alleges that NASA did not properly examine the object well enough to conclude that it was "just" a rock. NASA said the appearance of the rock was caused by the nearby impact that sent the rock toward the rover, or, most likely, Opportunity knocked the rock from the ground and no one noticed until later.

The lawsuit was filed in the US District Court Northern District of California by self-described cosmologist Rhawn Joseph, claiming the white rock was a living thing and is seeking an order forcing NASA and its Administrator, Charles Boulden, to investigate the rock more diligently. Joseph, who is a founder of the online Journal of Cosmology, asks NASA to "perform a public, scientific, and statutory duty which is to closely photograph and thoroughly scientifically examine and investigate a putative biological organism."

"When examined by Petitioner," the suit states, "the same structure in miniature was clearly visible upon magnification and appears to have just germinated from spores. The refusal to take close up photos from various angles, the refusal to take microscopicimages of the specimen, the refusal to release high resolution photos, is inexplicable, recklessly negligent, and bizarre," the lawsuit alleged.

NASA responed to PopSci.com: "This is an ongoing legal matter and we are limited in what we can discuss about the filing. However, NASA has been publicly sharing our ongoing research into the rock dubbed “Pinnacle Island" since we originally released the images from the Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity earlier this month. The rock, which NASA is studying to better understand its chemical composition, also was widely discussed during a Jan. 22 NASA Television news conference. As we do with all our scientific research missions, NASA will continue to discuss any new data regarding the rock and other images and information as new data becomes available."

The Daily Galaxy via NASA and PopSci

Image Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/Cornell Univ./Arizona State University

Comments

This object look like the lump of corrosive material that forms around a leaky acid battery post.

The law suit was rejected by the court as non founded.

If this person who filed the suit is so interested in the object - why not fund, from their own pocket, the cost of a mission to examine this object?
Hmm - nothing but crickets.

@oldfart
Tax dollars that fund NASA are already from our own pocket...

@oldfart:
well I'm not sure funding a multi billion dollar mission to examine one rock on Mars would be realistic or within the power of anyone to put together.

In this case I actually do think NASA owes it to the American people to examine that rock much more closely.

Personally I don't think it's life or anything more than yet another rock.

But it's the first time a rock has mysteriously just kind of appear ed like that it's composition appears unusual.

So why wouldn't NASA want to through all the instruments they have at it?

It is indeed odd that NASA wouldn't want to naturally examine that closer?

Some people think they can really make money out of every thing !!

Some people think they can really make money out of every thing !!
Appears to be a common US of A lawyers collusion to rippof every living thing.

ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH

In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which could have easily spewed dirt and rocks containing microbes into outer space which not only could have eventually reached Mars but also ended up traveling in orbit through space that we now know as meteors, comets, and asteroids. A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions the high possibility of Earth life on Mars. "We think there's about 7 million tons of earth soil sitting on Mars", says scientist and evolutionist Kenneth Nealson. "You have to consider the possibility that if we find life on Mars, it could have come from the Earth" [Weingarten, T., Newsweek, September 21, 1998, p.12].

HAVING THE RIGHT CONDITIONS AND RAW MATERIALS FOR LIFE doesn't mean that life can originate by chance.

Proteins can't come into existence unless there's life first! Miller, in his famous experiment in 1953, showed that individual amino acids (the building blocks of life) could come into existence by chance. But, it's not enough just to have amino acids. The various amino acids that make-up life must link together in a precise sequence, just like the letters in a sentence, to form functioning protein molecules. If they're not in the right sequence the protein molecules won't work. It has never been shown that various amino acids can bind together into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules. Even the simplest cell is made up of many millions of various protein molecules.

The probability of just an average size protein molecule arising by chance is 10 to the 65th power. Mathematicians have said any event in the universe with odds of 10 to 50th power or greater is impossible! The late great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle calculated that the odds of even the simplest cell coming into existence by chance is 10 to the 40,000th power! How large is this? Consider that the total number of atoms in our universe is 10 to the 23rd power.

Also, what many don't realize is that Miller had a laboratory apparatus that shielded and protected the individual amino acids the moment they were formed, otherwise the amino acids would have quickly disintegrated and been destroyed in the mix of random energy and forces involved in Miller's experiment.

There is no innate chemical tendency for the various amino acids to bond with one another in a sequence. Any one amino acid can just as easily bond with any other. The only reason at all for why the various amino acids bond with one another in a precise sequence in the cells of our bodies is because they're directed to do so by an already existing sequence of molecules found in our genetic code.

Of course, once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic code and
biological machinery exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how could life or the cell have naturally originated when no directing code and mechanisms existed in nature? Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.

A partially evolved cell would quickly disintegrate under the effects of random forces of the environment, especially without the protection of a complete and fully functioning cell membrane. A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years for chance to make it complete and living! In fact, it couldn't have even
reached the partially evolved state.

Please read my popular Internet articles listed below:

ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH,
SCIENCE AND THE ORIGIN OF LIFE,
NATURAL LIMITS OF EVOLUTION,
HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM,
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS (2nd Edition),
NO HALF-EVOLVED DINOSAURS,
HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?
DOES GOD PARTICLE EXPLAIN UNIVERSE'S ORIGIN?

Visit my newest Internet site: THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION

Sincerely,
Babu G. Ranganathan*
(B.A. theology/biology)

Author of popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS

* I have had the privilege of being recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis "Who's Who In The East" for my writings on religion and science, and I have given successful lectures (with question and answer time afterwards) defending creation from science before evolutionist science faculty and students at various colleges and universities.

I already answered this question folks, it's Martian kids throwing rocks at the rover!

"When examined by Petitioner," the suit states, "the same structure in miniature was clearly visible upon magnification and appears to have just germinated from spores. The refusal to take close up photos from various angles, the refusal to take microscopicimages of the specimen, the refusal to release high resolution photos, is inexplicable, recklessly negligent, and bizarre," the lawsuit alleged.

Know what's bizarre? Petitioner claims that the same structure in miniature was clearly visible upon magnification, yet in the same breath claims that there was a "refusal" 'to take close-up photos from various angles', or 'microscopic images', or 'release high-resolution photos', all of which are false. The Journal of Cosmology is widely known to be a pseudo-journal and hotbed of crackpottery that spouts junk. Why are you giving these nuts attention?

AIWesting: We posted this because NASA took the suit seriously enough to make a public response.

I read your article and I think it's flawed on many levels, and here's why I think so:

1) "If you discovered a sand castle on a lonely beach, you can't prove it was made by either chance or design" ... please see the examples of apparent design patterns by Daniel Dennet and mathematical self emerging patterns

2) "Mathematicians have said that any event with odds of 10 to the 50th power or over is impossible" ... I pick up a hand of bridge cards, the chances for that combination is one in 53,644,737,765,488,792,839,237,440,000(source wikipedia). The odds for that combination are too small to even happen, yet it exists and I'm looking at it. In science there is no authority, there are experts but does not mean they are right until experimentally proven. Have you considered the 10^500 universes proposed by the anthropic landscape and that each span a new set set of laws with new types of patterns(no planets and stars but other types of structures)

3)"odds of an average protein molecule coming into existence" same arguments of the watchmaker, you have to go lower level than that

4) "it seems that the cell is irreducibly complex. For example, without DNA there can be no RNA, and without RNA there can be no DNA. And without either DNA or RNA there can be no proteins, and without proteins there can be no DNA or RNA" ... simpler TNA and RNA been proven to function and replicate without proteins and DNA. You are looking at our RNA inside the cell instead of the simpler prehistoric RNA in the RNA world that embedded anything could react with from it's environment.

5) "DNA, the genetic code, also is made up of various smaller molecules (nucleic acids) that have to be together in a precise sequence in order for the DNA to work" ... you need to read more on evolution, nothing evolve successfully from the first try, nothing was in the current state, many specimens had to die so until a successful sequence solution survived and reproduced. The DNA chain started small and increased in length and complexity. There are Japanese flowers with DNA hundred times longer than humans.

6) "latest science shows that Junk DNA is not Junk" ... It's junk all-right, because is non-coding, however is important because if a merger occur in the junk-dna will change the sequence and different proteins will be created. However, mouse had me artificially created in lab by totally removing the Junk from DNA and was perfectly healthy. Junk-dna is the remnant of the discarded genes and is "evidence of evolution"; it can be traced to junkDNA in close-relative species

7) "Frederick Hoyle showed that the probability of the simplest form of life is 10 to the 40,000th power" ... the creationists premises is that things come to existence in one instance, as Frederick Hoyle tornado creating a Boeing in a scrap yard. However, evolution don't say something complex arose from parts in a single instance, but simple things slowly become more and more complex in billions of years, by discarding the unsuccessful combinations.

Frederick Hoyle: "one simple enzyme forming by chance is 10 to the power of 20 (one with twenty zeros behind it), to 1. Hence for one cell to form, about 2000 enzymes are needed, which makes the probability of the first self replicating cell forming by random movement of atoms as 10 to the power of 40000 to 1". However, he disregarded that:
- simple RNA (similar to tC19Z) don't need 10^40000 sequence probability but only 10^3
- reactions don't happen only on planets, interstellar clouds have high temperatures and density
- the universe is full of base molecules for RNA and DNA
- the reaction time is mostly fractions of seconds (up till years)
- visible universe have more than 10^83 molecules continuously reacting for more than 13.5 billion years
- Life don't have to be necessarily DNA/RNA based.
- So far is estimated a minimum of 10^24 planets in the visible universe, each with his chemistry reactions, etc

8) "If the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once" ... not really, read about RNA world

9) "Life is far too complex to have happened by chance. Therefore, it is much more logical to believe that the genetic and biological similarities between species are due to a common Designer rather than common ancestry through evolution" ... I guess you should had start with this phrase so we know what is all about

btw, judging by the name, you are probably originally from india,pakistan or sri lanka; excuse me if I'm wrong. What god do you believe in, Vishnu, Shiva, Rama, Jesus, El / Yahweh or Allah... ? I know India have few thousands gods, and each person might have a different interpretation of the faith. You should clarify, then, since you like combinations and permutations maths so much, you should calculate what's the probability of those stories to be true comparing with other existing religions and all the other dead mythologies. Then you must calculate the likelihood of those unbelievable miracles against the probability that people told lies in human history, that people believed lies, that people like to manipulate, control other people, invent fictional events, have induced hallucinations etc ...

let me know which have higher probability, RNA formation somewhere in universe or the purity of events transmitted orally throughout thousands of years and billions of people and and influenced by other cultures, interpreted, translated and altered many times.

Sorry, forgot to mention, previous post was for Babu G. Ranganathan: "How forensic science refutes atheism"

If we take logic and science out of the equation, we are left with possible explanation why someone would sue NASA for not investigating the "sudden" appearance of this white rock; either Joseph has bats in his belfry or rocks in his head? Maybe he is a couple of rocks short of a full boulder? With the Apollo mission we went to the Moon (Luna) to fetch a pail of rocks, and now that we are on the Mars we need to fetch a pail of Red Rocks.
Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of Moon rocks; Jack feel down and brook his crown, and boulders came tumbling after.

i think it is a photoshop picture just see the dimension of the hole in the left picture and we will see that the object in the right picture has completely the same dimension >> observe and think about it


Post a comment

« "Rogue Asteroids the Norm in Our Solar System" --MIT & Paris Observatory | Main | "Kepler Object of Interest" --A Major Step in the Search for a Twin Solar System (Today's Most Popular) »




1


2


3


4


5


6


7


8





9


11


12


13


14


15

Our Partners

technology partners

A


19


B

About Us/Privacy Policy

For more information on The Daily Galaxy and to contact us please visit this page.



E