CHALLENGE! Explain These Pictures From Mars!

jonathan

unread,

Jul 1, 2015, 12:51:27 PM7/1/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

John Bode

unread,

Jul 1, 2015, 1:51:29 PM7/1/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 11:51:27 AM UTC-5, jonathan wrote:
> This is a REAL test, since the answers don't
> currently exist and can't be Googled. You have
> to figure it out all by...yourself.
>
> If these simple objects can't be explained
> by 'modern' science, then attempting to explain
> the creation of far more complex things such as
> life and intelligence is scientific folly.
>

How did I know this would be about the "blueberries"?

Not a geologist in any way, shape, or form, but here's where my mind goes:

Spherules are fairly common on Earth around volcanos and meteorite impacts;
droplets of molten material that are kicked into the air (for suitably loose
values of "air") freeze into roughly spherical shapes before hitting the
ground.

Given that Mars has both volcanoes and impact craters, that would be my
first stab at an explanation. Larger spherules may be from exceptionally
high-energy eruptions or impacts kicking melt high enough so that
the larger droplets had time to cool before hitting the ground. Mars'
lower gravity would make that easier.

Of course, given that Mars planetary scientists are still puzzling over
them, it's not going to be that simple. They could be accretions, although
I don't even pretend to know what kind of processes would produce spherical
deposits.

One totally off-the-wall I-know-it-has-to-be-wrong idea: back when Mars
still had water, it may have experienced a phenomenon similar to West Texas
"muddings", where you have rain and a dust storm at the same time. Some
of these spherules could have started out as muddy hailstones (which are
roughly sperical) and somehow retained their shape after the water had
evaporated out. Not putting a whole lot of confidence in that one,
though.

Burkhard

unread,

Jul 1, 2015, 2:51:26 PM7/1/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

John Bode wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 11:51:27 AM UTC-5, jonathan wrote:
>> This is a REAL test, since the answers don't
>> currently exist and can't be Googled. You have
>> to figure it out all by...yourself.
>>
>> If these simple objects can't be explained
>> by 'modern' science, then attempting to explain
>> the creation of far more complex things such as
>> life and intelligence is scientific folly.
>>
>
> How did I know this would be about the "blueberries"?
>
> Not a geologist in any way, shape, or form, but here's where my mind goes:
>
> Spherules are fairly common on Earth around volcanos and meteorite impacts;
> droplets of molten material that are kicked into the air (for suitably loose
> values of "air") freeze into roughly spherical shapes before hitting the
> ground.

The truth is much simpler. The administrators of the Galactic Empire had
their annual away-day on Mars, where they played Pétanque, as every
aeon. This happened of course last Thursday. As so often, they did not
clean up properly after themselves, leaving the balls behind. They also
forgot a teapot which is now in orbit

Bob Casanova

unread,

Jul 1, 2015, 2:51:26 PM7/1/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 12:50:24 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jonathan
<WriteI...@gmail.com>:

>
>
>This is a REAL test, since the answers don't
>currently exist and can't be Googled. You have
>to figure it out all by...yourself.
>
>If these simple objects can't be explained
>by 'modern' science, then attempting to explain
>the creation of far more complex things such as
>life and intelligence is scientific folly.
>
>
>Q: Please explain, in detail, the process of creation
> of the following artifacts from the surface of Mars
> using only non-living explanations.

"Artifacts" (or "artefacts") is an assumption of production
by intelligent effort; etymology: "from Latin arte 'by or
using art' + factum 'something made' "

"Objects" would be better because of the lack of such
implied assumption.

That said, I can't imagine why you think that the actions of
wind alone over thousands of years wouldn't produce such
objects by mutual abrasion, exactly as sand grains on a
beach are produced. This isn't an "Elvis on Mars" scenario.

>Q: Please estimate whether the processes involved
> geologic times spans or ice-age time spans.

I fail to see the difference, unless you have some
definition of "geologic time span" which excludes the time
span of an ice age.

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

jonathan

unread,

Jul 1, 2015, 5:56:26 PM7/1/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

On 7/1/2015 2:48 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 12:50:24 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by jonathan
> <WriteI...@gmail.com>:
>
>>
>>
>> This is a REAL test, since the answers don't
>> currently exist and can't be Googled. You have
>> to figure it out all by...yourself.
>>
>> If these simple objects can't be explained
>> by 'modern' science, then attempting to explain
>> the creation of far more complex things such as
>> life and intelligence is scientific folly.
>>
>>
>> Q: Please explain, in detail, the process of creation
>> of the following artifacts from the surface of Mars
>> using only non-living explanations.
>
> "Artifacts" (or "artefacts") is an assumption of production
> by intelligent effort; etymology: "from Latin arte 'by or
> using art' + factum 'something made' "
>
> "Objects" would be better because of the lack of such
> implied assumption.
>
> That said, I can't imagine why you think that the actions of
> wind alone over thousands of years wouldn't produce such
> objects by mutual abrasion, exactly as sand grains on a
> beach are produced. This isn't an "Elvis on Mars" scenario.
>

When I first started looking at the spheres
I assumed the same thing, simple mineral
concretions. But a closer look shows they
can't possibly have formed the way concretions
on Earth formed for many reasons.

These pictures clearly show spheres that
are almost perfectly round, with some
nearby clearly more eroded. That means
they...start off round, not end-up round
due to eons of erosion. So erosion is
not a reasonable explanation at all
for their formation.

Some kind of geo-chemical explanation is
the only plausible explanation.

Round Spheres
http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/m/084/1M135646668EFF1300P2956M2M1.HTML

http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/m/073/1M134672193EFF1000P2936M2M1.HTML

http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/m/039/1M131649674EFF0544P2933M2M1.HTML

http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/m/019/1M129869769EFF0338P2953M2M1.HTML

http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/m/028/1M130673077EFF0454P2933M2M1.HTML

And how does erosion account for the teardrop
shaped sphere in the lower left?

http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/m/105/1M137503553EFF2208P2956M2M1.HTML

Or the largest sphere in the lower left
where you can see a sphere with a fresh
layer half formed? Which shows that with\
each soaking a new layer is deposited, that's
how they grow, in water-soaked soil, not in
rocks as on Earth. Apples and oranges!

http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/m/106/1M137593860EFF2208P2956M2M1.HTML

And notice some of the spheres appear to
form while somehow glued to a rock, hardly
an example of erosion, quite the contrary.

Glued Spheres
http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/m/039/1M131648550EFF0544P2953M2M1.HTML

http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/m/039/1M131649674EFF0544P2933M2M1.HTML

(note the off-center slash seen in many spheres)
http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/m/028/1M130673077EFF0454P2933M2M1.HTML

>> Q: Please estimate whether the processes involved
>> geologic times spans or ice-age time spans.
>
> I fail to see the difference,

You don't see the significance in the difference
between geologic time and ice-age time spans?

It means everything when discussing the formation
of spherical concretions, as on Earth concretions
are formed inside rocks as water flows along
the cracks, then later the concretions weather out
over geologic time. That process takes countless
millions of years. And the size and shape of such
concretions are highly site specific, different
sizes and shapes for different size cracks and
water flow etc.

Yet some of those spheres on mars appear so pristine
and UN-eroded that it's hard to imagine any
scenario where they're hundreds of millions
of years old.

And the spheres on Mars rather mysteriously
come in just two highly uniform sizes no matter
which site they're found. You don't see a mix
of the two sizes.

Large
http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/m/034/1M131212713EFF0500P2959M2M1.HTML

Small

http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P2956M2M1.JPG

unless you have some
> definition of "geologic time span" which excludes the time
> span of an ice age.
>

One is millions, the other thousands, come on!@
Has it occurred to anyone that Mars has ice-ages?

jonathan

unread,

Jul 1, 2015, 6:51:27 PM7/1/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

On 7/1/2015 1:50 PM, John Bode wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 11:51:27 AM UTC-5, jonathan wrote:
>> This is a REAL test, since the answers don't
>> currently exist and can't be Googled. You have
>> to figure it out all by...yourself.
>>
>> If these simple objects can't be explained
>> by 'modern' science, then attempting to explain
>> the creation of far more complex things such as
>> life and intelligence is scientific folly.
>>
>
> How did I know this would be about the "blueberries"?
>

They're still an open question, I've checked.
The latest theories are they formed in wet soil
just below the surface then erodes out later
much like in this picture of freshly exposed
spheres. A stunning picture imo.

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/012/1P129250922EFF0224P2374L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg

When the spheres were first found I assumed the
same as everyone, concretions like on Earth.

So I spent months reading virtually every published
paper on spherical concretions to see for myself.
Only to find the state of the art was pathetic
in the field. And in no way could the Mars spheres
be explained by Earth examples and for many reasons.

> Not a geologist in any way, shape, or form, but here's where my mind goes:
>
> Spherules are fairly common on Earth around volcanos and meteorite impacts;

Here's where they were found, not a mountain to be found
and in fact hardly a single stray rock, just soil from
horizon to horizon...coated almost entirely with spheres.

And look at the /razor-flat/ horizon, only water or ice
can create this horizon. This isn't a volcanic site, it's
the exposed floor of a shallow underground sea that
dried up long ago.

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/505/tn/1P173013913EFF55VWP2559L5M1_L2L5L5L6L6.jpg.html

About the only stray rocks to be found at Meridiani
were in fact...meteorites like this one.

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/2001/tn/1P305825702EFFA5EVP2555L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg.html

And the impact craters that were thought to be there
turned out to be sink-holes. Like the one's you see
in the picture above, where's the ejecta?

And below looking out from the 'crater'. You can
almost see where the waves washed up upon the
'crater' edge.

Endurance Crater

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/n/119/1N138744629EFF2809P1987R0M1.JPG
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/n/111/1N138039382EFF2600P1986R0M1.HTML

This is the closest Earth analogue I can find
to the above pics.

The Stromatolites of Stella Maris, Bahamas
http://www.theflyingcircus.com/stella_maris.html

> droplets of molten material that are kicked into the air (for suitably loose
> values of "air") freeze into roughly spherical shapes before hitting the
> ground.
>

And how do you explain the uniform size and deposits
from a volcanic explanation?

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/069/tn/1P134310798ESF08AYP2583L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg.html

The sphere in the lower left clearly shows
deposits forming on the spheres almost
certainly due to periodic soaking.
So they must have formed in wet soil.

There are ZERO examples of abiotic spherical
concretions on Earth forming in wet soil.

http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/m/106/1M137593860EFF2208P2956M2M1.HTML

> Given that Mars has both volcanoes and impact craters, that would be my
> first stab at an explanation. Larger spherules may be from exceptionally
> high-energy eruptions or impacts kicking melt high enough so that
> the larger droplets had time to cool before hitting the ground. Mars'
> lower gravity would make that easier.
>
> Of course, given that Mars planetary scientists are still puzzling over
> them, it's not going to be that simple. They could be accretions, although
> I don't even pretend to know what kind of processes would produce spherical
> deposits.
>
> One totally off-the-wall I-know-it-has-to-be-wrong idea: back when Mars
> still had water, it may have experienced a phenomenon similar to West Texas
> "muddings", where you have rain and a dust storm at the same time. Some
> of these spherules could have started out as muddy hailstones (which are
> roughly sperical) and somehow retained their shape after the water had
> evaporated out. Not putting a whole lot of confidence in that one,
> though.
>

The water on Mars has been mostly driven underground
by the thin atmosphere, almost the entire northern
half of the planet is thought to have soil that
is some 50% water ice just a few meters or tens of
meters below the surface.

Also Mars has ice ages, so ground water can come
closer to the surface as temps warm.

If you look at Meridiani from satellite it appears
to be vast sand dunes. A dead dry surface and for
billions of years, ever since the atmosphere left.

But when they got there to everyone's amazement they
found Meridiani is in fact covered with clay-like soil
capped by a thin crust. How can the dunes blow in the wind
if they have a crust?

How do you explain CLAY on the surface of Mars
when it's supposedly dry and been exposed to the
unshielded sun for geologic time?

Thin crust over clay like soil
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/842/tn/1P202931334EFF71HUP2422L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg.html

Clay-like, upper left corner
http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/2726/1M370194734EFFBN19P2955M2M1.HTML

On Earth our biosphere is mostly between the
atmosphere and the surface, but on Mars
the loss of the atmosphere has produced
a vast potential biosphere between the
surface and wet---subsurface.

The 'oceans' on Mars are underground hot springs
with the soil it's 'atmosphere'.

As ice-ages wax and wane, would be analogous
to seasons on Earth, with the appropriate
change in the rate of erosion/evolution that
would bring.

As in years on Earth would be like millennia
on Mars. I would expect that life would be
limited to 'entry level' such as microbes.

And when we get to Mars we find spheres almost
everywhere, on the surface, inside the rocks
glued to the rocks, in the craters, in the
fields. Everywhere and in incredible abundance.

Concretions which almost defy an abiotic explanation.

Mineral concretions on Earth are generally few
and far between.

sw

s

jonathan

unread,

Jul 1, 2015, 8:11:25 PM7/1/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

On 7/1/2015 6:49 PM, jonathan wrote:
> On 7/1/2015 1:50 PM, John Bode wrote:

This is the correct picture, the horizon speaks
volumes.

>
> Here's where they were found, not a mountain to be found
> and in fact hardly a single stray rock, just soil from
> horizon to horizon...coated almost entirely with spheres.
>
> And look at the /razor-flat/ horizon, only water or ice
> can create this horizon. This isn't a volcanic site, it's
> the exposed floor of a shallow underground sea that
> dried up long ago.
>

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/069/tn/1P134310798ESF08AYP2583L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg.html

Chris Thompson

unread,

Jul 1, 2015, 11:51:26 PM7/1/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

On 7/1/2015 12:50 PM, jonathan wrote:
>
>
> This is a REAL test, since the answers don't
> currently exist and can't be Googled. You have
> to figure it out all by...yourself.
>
> If these simple objects can't be explained
> by 'modern' science, then attempting to explain
> the creation of far more complex things such as
> life and intelligence is scientific folly.
>
>
> Q: Please explain, in detail, the process of creation
> of the following artifacts from the surface of Mars
> using only non-living explanations.
>
>
> Q: Please estimate whether the processes involved
> geologic times spans or ice-age time spans.
>
>
>
> Small spheres
>
> http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P2956M2M1.JPG
>
>
>
> Eroded Spheres
>
> http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/m/053/1M132896352EFF06ASP2956M2M1.HTML
>
>
>
> Sphere garden
>
> http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/012/tn/1P129250922EFF0224P2374L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg.html
>

This is, of course, the vital clue. They all used to be flowers until
the Vogons had a poetry contest on Mars.

Chris

Earle Jones27

unread,

Jul 2, 2015, 1:36:26 AM7/2/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

*
Jonathan:

First of all, many thanks for these beautiful NASA pictures from the
Mars Rover; close-ups of what is on the Mars surface. Amazing.

I think it proves, beyond the shadow of any doubt that Mars, along with
the Earth and other planets was created by an intelligent being. And
further, that the being was our God. There is no other way that those
perfect little spheres could exist without a perfect designer.

It proves that God created the universe and all that is within it. It
compleely disproves the sinful belief of evolution and shows without
doubt that there is an intelligent designer.

It proves that we should give this designer, this God, our loyalty and
devotion and if we do not, we will burn in the fires of hell for all
eternity.

I think that Ray Martinez can stop his 20-year attempt to prove, with
only words, that evolution cannot happen. Your pictures, Jonathan,
have accomplished in a few websites, what Ray has spent his life in
attempting.

Ray should give you a massive tribute for finishing his life work.

Many thanks for bringing the truth to our yearning intellects.

earle
*

jonathan

unread,

Jul 2, 2015, 1:01:23 PM7/2/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

On 7/2/2015 1:32 AM, Earle Jones27 wrote:

> On 2015-07-01 16:50:24 +0000, jonathan said:
>
>> This is a REAL test, since the answers don't
>> currently exist and can't be Googled. You have
>> to figure it out all by...yourself.

>

> First of all, many thanks for these beautiful NASA pictures from the
> Mars Rover; close-ups of what is on the Mars surface. Amazing.
>

Your sarcasm is noted, but for the above statement I did have
to look at maybe half a million images over a 5 year span
to collect the above pics. There is no better compilation
of Martian sphere images anywhere to be found that I know of.

And I should note, that for those that dismiss this, the
spheres are in fact the most mysterious and unexplained
objects ever found on another planet. There is no Earth
analogue, or explanation that is accepted as complete.

What the spheres - in fact - show is that the process
of self-organization can occur anywhere, even on a
hostile planet, and even with non-living systems.

Which means evolution can and should occur just about
anywhere...it can. Not a fluke at all, with even near
suitable conditions, the question should NOW be
'why hasn't life evolved there'?

What's stopping it, not what started it.

Jonathan

s

jillery

unread,

Jul 2, 2015, 1:11:24 PM7/2/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 12:50:24 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>This is a REAL test, since the answers don't
>currently exist and can't be Googled. You have
>to figure it out all by...yourself.
>
>If these simple objects can't be explained
>by 'modern' science, then attempting to explain
>the creation of far more complex things such as
>life and intelligence is scientific folly.

Oh my, yet another God of the Gaps argument. How will the world cope?
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

Bob Casanova

unread,

Jul 2, 2015, 3:06:23 PM7/2/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 17:55:18 -0400, the following appeared

I didn't assume they are concretions, I assumed they are
erosion-produced (or vulcanism-produced, or impact-produced;
thanks, John).

>These pictures clearly show spheres that
>are almost perfectly round, with some
>nearby clearly more eroded. That means
>they...start off round, not end-up round
>due to eons of erosion.

It means no such thing; even a cube will end up at least
semi-spherical after eons of erosion. AFAIK the only way
this *won't* happen is if the object has a crystalline
structure like the quartz which makes up most beach sand; in
that case the resultant grains will retain the crystalline
shape, at least to some degree. I could be mistaken about
this; I'm no geologist, and I welcome correction by any who
care to do so. But your contention has no basis in reality;
long-term erosion will *always* tend to smooth the rough
edges of objects, especially small ones such as those shown.

> So erosion is
>not a reasonable explanation at all
>for their formation.
>
>Some kind of geo-chemical explanation is
>the only plausible explanation.

OK; so? What exactly does that imply to you; that there was
an intelligent entity involved?

<snip more "I can't see how this could happen" references>

>>> Q: Please estimate whether the processes involved
>>> geologic times spans or ice-age time spans.
>>
>> I fail to see the difference,

>You don't see the significance in the difference
>between geologic time and ice-age time spans?

No; see below.

Neither "geologic time span" nor "ice age time span" is
defined at all rigorously in your initial post. If you have
a reference for their definitions which agrees with your
personal one I'd be happy to read and accept it.

And BTW, recent glaciations lasted for tens of thousands to
hundreds of thousands of years individually, with glaciation
being the "normal" state of Earth over the past couple of
million, with short interglacials. So there's no sharp
divide between "geologic time" and "ice age time"; they
overlap.

>Has it occurred to anyone that Mars has ice-ages?

Probably. So? Do you have any evidence that, if they
occurred, they lasted for a comparable time to those on
Earth?

<snip>

jonathan

unread,

Jul 2, 2015, 6:36:23 PM7/2/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

Well that's not what the current astrobiology
community says. In Meridian there is no vulcanism
and a fresh surface with scant few impact crater.
Yet the spheres are everywhere.

Please explain how erosion could create these spheres?
And look closely at them, some look pristine, not
eroded at all.

http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/m/182/1M144339407EFF3370P2907M2M1.HTML

How could erosion produce the teardrop shaped sphere
lower left?

http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/m/105/1M137503553EFF2208P2956M2M1.HTML

Or these spheres?

http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/m/039/1M131648550EFF0544P2953M2M1.HTML

The sphere in the lower left shows how they
deposit a new layer with each soaking....LOOK!
http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/m/106/1M137593860EFF2208P2956M2M1.HTML

They formed in place, in the once wet clay-like /soil/
a few meters below the surface, that's the latest
greatest theory.

Which, btw, a vast underground layer of warm, wet
soil rich with iron, silica and sulfur would
also be the ideal conditions for microbes.

>> These pictures clearly show spheres that
>> are almost perfectly round, with some
>> nearby clearly more eroded. That means
>> they...start off round, not end-up round
>> due to eons of erosion.
>
> It means no such thing; even a cube will end up at least
> semi-spherical after eons of erosion.

You just made my point, I said they start off perfectly
round and then erode away. If something started off
as a cube that needs an explanation, just as with
a sphere. It's not enough to say...'erosion' as if
that's an explanation for anything much more than sand.

AFAIK the only way
> this *won't* happen is if the object has a crystalline
> structure like the quartz which makes up most beach sand; in
> that case the resultant grains will retain the crystalline
> shape, at least to some degree. I could be mistaken about
> this; I'm no geologist, and I welcome correction by any who
> care to do so. But your contention has no basis in reality;
> long-term erosion will *always* tend to smooth the rough
> edges of objects, especially small ones such as those shown.
>

The spheres are mostly hematite (iron) and silica.

Opportunity went to Meridiani due to the strong
signature of hematite, a form of iron that is
associated with warm water, and virtually all of
the hematite is in the spheres, none in the soil.
If the spheres were eroding away, they'd find
the iron in the soil too.

Erosion dissipates iron, self organization
concentrates it.

>> So erosion is
>> not a reasonable explanation at all
>> for their formation.
>>
>> Some kind of geo-chemical explanation is
>> the only plausible explanation.
>
> OK; so?

That would be entirely different process from
erosion, vulcanism or impacts, that's what.
A geo-chemical process strongly implies
they formed in place, like a crystal and
in water. Or more likely wet underground soil.

> What exactly does that imply to you; that there was
> an intelligent entity involved?
>

My hobby is self-organization, and that's what
appears to be responsible for the spheres.

If you have a highly dynamic medium such as
water, and a very persistent energy gradient
the process of self organization can spontaneously
emerge.

And from relative disorder, increasing cyclic order
is often the result.

OR, how creation and evolution receives it's initial start
and steadily gains the ability to transition from geology
to biology.

>
> Neither "geologic time span" nor "ice age time span" is
> defined at all rigorously in your initial post. I

One spans the geologic history of the planet in question.
The other spans the ice-age history of same.
One differs from the other typically by three decimal
points.

One typically involves rocks, the other ice.

A child of ten of average intelligence could grasp
the qualitative difference between the two.

>
> <snip>
>

jonathan

unread,

Jul 2, 2015, 7:01:23 PM7/2/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

Let's start over with a hypothetical, you just
got your very first good look at the surface of
another planet, a first for humanity!

And you find the surface coated with objects that
can't be fully explained by non-living or simple
chemical processes.

Not just a vast desert of rocks and sand.
You wouldn't find that interesting?

This is what a dead, desert planet that's
been eroding away in the sun for eons looks
like, half of Mars look like this...

http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/2/n/1215/2N234228185EFFATF3P0600L0M1.HTML

The other half looks much like this...

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/069/tn/1P134312453ESF08AYP2413L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg.html

And is coated by clay-like soil covered by a thin
crust.

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/842/tn/1P202931334EFF71HUP2422L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg.html

A tale of two worlds, one dry the other quite wet.
One hostile to life, the other the ideal conditions
for microbes, which also happen to be chock full of
curious little objects.

Before they went to Meridiani they tried to
predict what they might find...if simple life
were there.

This is the result of that study...

BIOGENIC STRUCTURES FROM A HYPERSALINE LAKE
IN THE BAHAMAS.
Lunar and Planetary Science XXXII (2001) 1068.pdf

The goals of this study are to to identify unique
compositional and biogenic features, possibly
correlating some of these with some of the
sulfate-reducing bacteria.

"Water on the Martian surface may have formed
subtidal pools formed that are similar to
Storr’s Lake.

Our FE-SEM analy-sis indicates a range of microbial life
forms on the fractured stromatolite surfaces. Spheroidal
features are the most common, with four distinct
populations, characterized by their highly uniform
intrapopulation sizes:"

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2001/pdf/1068.pdf

'Highly uniform intrapopulation sizes' like this picture
from Mars for instance...

http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P2956M2M1.JPG

Lunar and Planetary Science XXXV (2004)

GROUNDWATER-FED IRON-RICH MICROBIAL MATS IN A
FRESHWATER CREEK: GROWTH CYCLES AND
FOSSILIZATION POTENTIAL OF MICROBIAL
FEATURES.

"It is this common association of microbes and iron
deposition on earth that has spurred hopes that robot
crafts exploring the hematite anomaly of Mars' Meridiani
Planum might find evidence for ancient life. The
hematite deposits of Meridiani Planum [7], regardless of
their exact origin, are considered to be a favorable host
for microorganisms that might have been associated
with their formation [8]."

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2004/pdf/1369.pdf

> This space is intentionally not blank.
>

s

jonathan

unread,

Jul 2, 2015, 8:56:23 PM7/2/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

Here's a clue, look carefully at the delicate erosion
patterns cast in the...shadows...of each pic.
How long ago did water flow on that site on Mars?
Dead and dry for a billion years plus?

Yellowstone mudpot

http://www.nps.gov/features/yell/slidefile/thermalfeatures/mudpots/midwaylower/Images/05402.jpg

Meridian Crater wall (~10 degree slope)

http://qt.exploratorium.edu/mars/opportunity/pancam/2004-07-16/1P143185259EFF3221P2397R1M1.JPG

s

> Chris
>
>

jillery

unread,

Jul 3, 2015, 4:36:21 AM7/3/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

On Thu, 02 Jul 2015 12:56:41 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 7/2/2015 1:32 AM, Earle Jones27 wrote:
>
>> On 2015-07-01 16:50:24 +0000, jonathan said:
>>
>>> This is a REAL test, since the answers don't
>>> currently exist and can't be Googled. You have
>>> to figure it out all by...yourself.
>
>
>> First of all, many thanks for these beautiful NASA pictures from the
>> Mars Rover; close-ups of what is on the Mars surface. Amazing.
>>

>> I think it proves, beyond the shadow of any doubt that Mars, along with
>> the Earth and other planets was created by an intelligent being. And
>> further, that the being was our God. There is no other way that those
>> perfect little spheres could exist without a perfect designer.
>>
>> It proves that God created the universe and all that is within it. It
>> compleely disproves the sinful belief of evolution and shows without
>> doubt that there is an intelligent designer.
>>
>> It proves that we should give this designer, this God, our loyalty and
>> devotion and if we do not, we will burn in the fires of hell for all
>> eternity.
>>
>> I think that Ray Martinez can stop his 20-year attempt to prove, with
>> only words, that evolution cannot happen. Your pictures, Jonathan, have
>> accomplished in a few websites, what Ray has spent his life in attempting.
>>
>> Ray should give you a massive tribute for finishing his life work.
>>
>> Many thanks for bringing the truth to our yearning intellects.
>
>
>

>Your sarcasm is noted, but for the above statement I did have
>to look at maybe half a million images over a 5 year span
>to collect the above pics. There is no better compilation
>of Martian sphere images anywhere to be found that I know of.
>
>And I should note, that for those that dismiss this, the
>spheres are in fact the most mysterious and unexplained
>objects ever found on another planet. There is no Earth
>analogue, or explanation that is accepted as complete.
>
>What the spheres - in fact - show is that the process
>of self-organization can occur anywhere, even on a
>hostile planet, and even with non-living systems.
>
>Which means evolution can and should occur just about
>anywhere...it can. Not a fluke at all, with even near
>suitable conditions, the question should NOW be
>'why hasn't life evolved there'?
>
>What's stopping it, not what started it.

Nobody knows that life hasn't evolved on Mars. The effort to collect
the data to make an informed conclusion is still in progress.
--

jillery

unread,

Jul 3, 2015, 4:41:21 AM7/3/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

On Thu, 02 Jul 2015 18:57:02 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 7/2/2015 1:08 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 12:50:24 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This is a REAL test, since the answers don't
>>> currently exist and can't be Googled. You have
>>> to figure it out all by...yourself.
>>>
>>> If these simple objects can't be explained
>>> by 'modern' science, then attempting to explain
>>> the creation of far more complex things such as
>>> life and intelligence is scientific folly.
>>
>>
>> Oh my, yet another God of the Gaps argument. How will the world cope?
>> --
>
>
>
>Let's start over with a hypothetical, you just
>got your very first good look at the surface of
>another planet, a first for humanity!
>
>And you find the surface coated with objects that
>can't be fully explained by non-living or simple
>chemical processes.
>
>Not just a vast desert of rocks and sand.
>You wouldn't find that interesting?

That's not the question you previously asked, nor the question to
which I replied. And even though I find such phenomena interesting,
it still doesn't mean that searches for life and intelligence are
scientific folly.

[...]
--

jonathan

unread,

Jul 3, 2015, 1:01:21 PM7/3/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

What is folly is trying to explain the more complex
systems such as life before being able to explain
the far simpler systems such as those non-living
spheres.

What Mars does is provide that cherished 'second data point'
to look for commonalities with Earth.

If we see the same kind of thing happening on Mars
that's evidence what we see on Earth is not a fluke.

Anytime you see unusual concentration of iron on
the surface, on Earth the assumption is it's the
result of microbial activity.

On Mars all the iron is in those sphereS, not the soil.
We have an unexplained concentration of hematite
on Mars that just happen to appear much like their
living analogues on Earth.

"It is this common association of microbes and iron
deposition on earth that has spurred hopes that robot
crafts exploring the hematite anomaly of Mars' Meridiani
Planum might find evidence for ancient life. The
hematite deposits of Meridiani Planum [7], regardless of
their exact origin, are considered to be a favorable host
for microorganisms that might have been associated
with their formation [8]."
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2004/pdf/1369.pdf

Morphological Biosignatures and the Search for Life on Mars

"Determining the location of potential paleobiological repositories
on Mars requires an understanding of the martian surface in
terms of elemental abundances and mineralogy. This variety
of hematite on Earth forms only in the presence of large amounts of
water, and typically at elevated (hydrothermal) temperatures
(Christensen et al., 2000)."
http://geology.asu.edu/jfarmer/pubs/pdfs/morpho.pdf

Lamination as a tool for distinguishing microbial and metazoan
biosystems from inert structures

Conclusion:
"Lamination often indicates the presence of microbial or microbially
dominated biosystems. Furthermore, laminated structures are an
important borderline to distinguish micro and macroorganisms, although
such a distinction is relative. Both the presence and absence of
lamination are lawful phenomena based on the fundamental physical and
biological/biogeochemical principles."
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lpi/scholz.pdf

LOOK AT THE LAMINATION ON MARS!

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/136/tn/1P140262288EFF3174P2376L5M1_L2L5L5L7L7.jpg.html

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/013/tn/1P129343005EFF0300P2376L5M1_L2L5L5L7L7.jpg.

S

jillery

unread,

Jul 3, 2015, 1:36:20 PM7/3/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

On Fri, 03 Jul 2015 12:58:13 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>

Nope. Explanations of these Martian spheres suffer from a lack of
evidence typical of all newly discovered phenomena, magnified by
having to remotely obtain that evidence.

Your post illustrates your characteristic unsupported hyperbole which
rightfully qualifies you to be placed with anti-science Creationists.

Mark Isaak

unread,

Jul 3, 2015, 2:11:20 PM7/3/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

On 7/2/15 3:31 PM, jonathan wrote:
>
> Please explain how erosion could create these spheres?
> And look closely at them, some look pristine, not
> eroded at all.
>
> http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/m/182/1M144339407EFF3370P2907M2M1.HTML

The round and irregular ones are from two different sources.

Incidentally, the snowman-like pebble shows that the roundness is from
concretion, not erosion, at least not entirely from erosion. My guess
is that it is a chemical accretion process, with wind shifting the
pebbles enough for concretion to occur fairly uniformly on all surfaces.
Note that this could also explain the irregular stones; they were not
round enough to get shifted by the wind.

> How could erosion produce the teardrop shaped sphere
> lower left?
>
> http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/m/105/1M137503553EFF2208P2956M2M1.HTML

Stream erosion in which the pebble, already with one longer axis, was in
a long furrow, so that it would be rolled more along its long axis than
another. The same principle might apply to wind erosion or concretion.

> Or these spheres?
>
> http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/m/039/1M131648550EFF0544P2953M2M1.HTML

The one with a flat "base" on its side looks like it stayed stationary
long enough to get concreted to a surface, but before too long,
something knocked it loose.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

Bob Casanova

unread,

Jul 3, 2015, 2:31:20 PM7/3/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

On Thu, 02 Jul 2015 18:31:51 -0400, the following appeared

Obviously they must have been created (actually, Created)
with the sole intent of invoking that question and/or
confusing us, since we know everything about natural
processes and know that it's not possible that there could
be any natural process, or combination of processes, which
could produce them (q.v. Ray Martinez - "Observation of
design in nature").

>Please explain how erosion could create these spheres?
>And look closely at them, some look pristine, not
>eroded at all.

See prior note about "observation of design".

<snip more of the same>

jonathan

unread,

Jul 3, 2015, 7:16:20 PM7/3/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

On 7/3/2015 2:06 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 7/2/15 3:31 PM, jonathan wrote:
>>
>> Please explain how erosion could create these spheres?
>> And look closely at them, some look pristine, not
>> eroded at all.
>>
>> http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/m/182/1M144339407EFF3370P2907M2M1.HTML
>>
>
> The round and irregular ones are from two different sources.
>
> Incidentally, the snowman-like pebble shows that the roundness is from
> concretion, not erosion, at least not entirely from erosion. My guess
> is that it is a chemical accretion process, with wind shifting the
> pebbles enough for concretion to occur fairly uniformly on all surfaces.
> Note that this could also explain the irregular stones; they were not
> round enough to get shifted by the wind.
>

Hurricane wind speeds on Mars would feel like a 10 mph
breeze on Earth. The air is 100 times thinner.
Mars wind can raise dust off the surface, but
moving pebbles would be pretty much impossible.

http://passporttoknowledge.com/lfm/ask/atmosphere/Feel_of_Wind_on_Mars.txt

>> How could erosion produce the teardrop shaped sphere
>> lower left?
>>
>> http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/m/105/1M137503553EFF2208P2956M2M1.HTML
>>
>
> Stream erosion in which the pebble, already with one longer axis, was in
> a long furrow, so that it would be rolled more along its long axis than
> another. The same principle might apply to wind erosion or concretion.
>

It's thought they formed in wet soil, so the water would
tend to be stationary.

>> Or these spheres?
>>
>> http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/m/039/1M131648550EFF0544P2953M2M1.HTML
>>
>
> The one with a flat "base" on its side looks like it stayed stationary
> long enough to get concreted to a surface, but before too long,
> something knocked it loose.
>
>

Keep in mind erosional forces tend to produce a wide range
of sizes and shapes, in this picture the spheres
look remarkably identical in shape and size. That argues
strongly against erosional forces, whether wind or water.

And there's just too many of them

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/180/1P144166325EFF3342P2537L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg

The pic below is a crater wall with a significant slope
yet they don't settle at the bottom.

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/123/tn/1P139098299EFF2809P2267L5M1_L2L5L5L6L6.jpg.html

I haven't Googled recently for research on the
spheres, but I just found these interesting
papers that seem to agree with me <g>

That the spheres show the process of self organization
(evolution) in non-living systems....that creation itself
can be seen in those spheres...

Some excerpts from the papers...

A New Physics Theory of Life

Why does life exist?

Popular hypotheses credit a primordial soup, a bolt of lightning and a
colossal stroke of luck. But if a provocative new theory is correct,
luck may have little to do with it. Instead, according to the physicist
proposing the idea, the origin and subsequent evolution of life follow
from the fundamental laws of nature and “should be as unsurprising as
rocks rolling downhill.”

England’s theory is meant to underlie, rather than replace, Darwin’s
theory of evolution by natural selection, which provides a powerful
description of life at the level of genes and populations. “I am
certainly not saying that Darwinian ideas are wrong,” he explained. “On
the contrary, I am just saying that from the perspective of the physics,
you might call Darwinian evolution a special case of a more general
phenomenon.”

“He’s trying something radically different,” said Mara Prentiss, a
professor of physics at Harvard who is contemplating such an experiment
after learning about England’s work. “As an organizing lens, I think he
has a fabulous idea. Right or wrong, it’s going to be very much worth
the investigation.”

Self-Replicating Sphere Clusters: According to new research at Harvard,
coating the surfaces of microspheres can cause them to spontaneously
assemble into a chosen structure, such as a polytetrahedron (red), which
then triggers nearby spheres into forming an identical structure.

Scientists have already observed self-replication in nonliving systems.
According to new research led by Philip Marcus of the University of
California, Berkeley, and reported in Physical Review Letters in August,
vortices in turbulent fluids spontaneously replicate themselves by
drawing energy from shear in the surrounding fluid. And in a paper
appearing online this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, Michael Brenner, a professor of applied mathematics and
physics at Harvard, and his collaborators present theoretical models and
simulations of microstructures that self-replicate. These clusters of
specially coated microspheres dissipate energy by roping nearby spheres
into forming identical clusters. “This connects very much to what Jeremy
is saying,” Brenner said.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

Compare the illustration in the link of self replicating spheres
to the pic from Mars below....

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/183/tn/1P144428432EFF3370P2540L5M1_L2L5L5L7L7.jpg.html

Self-organized iron-oxide cementation geometry
as an indicator of paleo-flows

Widespread iron oxide precipitation from groundwater in fine-grained red
beds displays various patterns, including nodulation, banding and
scallops and fingers. Hematite nodules have been reported also from the
Meridiani Planum site on Mars and interpreted as evidence for the
ancient presence of water on the red planet. Here we show that such
patterns can autonomously emerge from a previously unrecognized Ostwald
ripening mechanism and they capture rich information regarding ancient
chemical and hydrologic environments.

Round nodules tend to develop under nearly stagnant hydrologic
conditions, while repetitive bands form in the presence of persistent
water flows. Since water circulation is a prerequisite for a sustainable
subsurface life, a Martian site with iron oxide precipitation bands, if
one were found, may offer a better chance for detecting extraterrestrial
biosignatures on Mars than would sites with nodules.

Other mechanisms have also been proposed to explain the iron oxide
patterning. For example, the formation of iron oxide nodules has been
attributed to microbial oxidation, which could be induced when an
Fe(II)-containing fluid is mixed with an oxidizing fluid10, 11. But how
this reaction becomes periodically localized in space remains
unexplained. In addition, the environment for red bed deposition and
diagenesis is generally poor in organic matter and microbial activity
may be limited12. Importantly, no existing theory can explain a
geometrical transition from one pattern to another, for example, from
nodulation to bandings or vice versa.

http://www.nature.com/srep/2015/150630/srep10792/full/srep10792.html

PREBIOTIC CHEMICAL EVOLUTION ON AN EARLY MARS: CONSEQUENCES & ARTIFACTS
OF “ORGANIC” WEATHER CYCLES IN THE NOACHIAN L

Introduction: This is a first attempt to build a
'universal' theory of life’s (potential) origin on a
warmer, wetter younger Mars. The universalities of
chemical physics provide intimate details of the
hydrology and weather cycles of Mars' past; offering
critical insight into whether life could have arisen on
Mars in the first place through the process of
chemical evolution. Requiring only liquid water and
simple amphiphiles local 'organic weather cycles'
inevitably form when the Rayleigh-Taylor instability
in water is metastabilized by simple organic
compounds. These lead to a complex set of mutually
transforming phase transitions fundamental to
Lerman's theory of chemical evolution [1–5] utilizing
the organizing properties of the air-water interface
and its microenvironments - bubbles, aerosols, and
droplets (Figure 1). Early Martian weather cycles
would thus provide functional support for an
independent "origin" of Martian li

Do Martian Blueberries have Pits? Consequences
& Artifacts of “Organic” Weather Cycles: One of
the more intriguing ideas coming from this work is
the possibility, even likelihood, that the Martian
blueberries discovered by Spirit and Opportunity are
nucleated around organic matter or otherwise
mediated by organic rich fluids. From their initial
discovery, Martian blueberries were linked to
terrestrial concretions as their most likely analog;
with the strong implication that they were similarly a
result of Martian sedimentary processes. If Martian
blueberries are concretion-like objects, then their
ubiquity suggests highly efficient formation
processes. On Earth, by far the most efficient of such
processes (for ooids to larger concretions of many
feet diameter) involve organic nucleation sites or
organic coatings of mineral cores accompanied by
intermittently agitated water. On Earth many of these
organic nucleation sites are of biogenic origin.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2006/pdf/1566.pdf

CHARACTERISTICS OF TERRESTRIAL FERRIC OXIDE CONCRETIONS AND
IMPLICATIONS FOR MARS

The discovery of hematite spherules on Mars has driven efforts
to better understand both terrestrial examples of ferric
oxide concretions and the competing mechanisms that produce
spheroidal geometries.

The integration of geologic and planetary sciences continues
to encourage new findings in the quest to understand the role
of water on Mars as well as the tantalizing possibility
that extraterrestrial life is associated with mineral
records of watery environments.

Concreation preservation in the ancient rock provides a
comparative model for the Mars examples that are similarly
embedded in host sediments.

Although decades ago concretions were viewed simply as geologic
‘‘curiosities,’’ it is now clear that the presence of concretions has
important implications for understanding groundwater movement and
chemistry, diagenesis, host rock properties, biogeochemical processes,
and iron cycling (precipitation and mobilization) through time.
The purpose of this article is to review current knowledge of ferric
oxide concretions and the implications for Mars and to discuss the
current gaps in our understanding.

This indicates
that concretions are less than 2900 years old (Bowen et al. 2008). These
absolute age constraints and the observed field conditions (i.e.,
softness of concretions) indicate that these hematite concretions are
actively forming in the modern acid saline environment and should
therefore contain records of the existing geochemical and
microbiological conditions. Diagenetic cements and evaporite minerals
can serve as tombs of biological materials that are commonly involved in
or simply trapped or preserved by rapid mineral precipitation processes
The existence of minerals that indicate
both acidic and extremely saline fluids on Mars has pointed to
inhospitable conditions, even if liquid water was once present (Tosca et
al. 2008b). Preservation of microfossils in oxidizing environments has
been considered dubious (Sumner 2004). However, examination of
fluids and sediments from terrestrial environments with hypersaline
(low–water activity), acidic, and oxidizing conditions, such as are
presumed to have existed in the ancient Meridiani environment, reveals
that even in these extreme conditions, microbiological communities
exist (Mormile et al. 2009) and can be preserved by rapidly
precipitating evaporates and iron oxides (Benison et al. 2008,
Fernandez-Remolar and Knoll 2008). If life existed in past aqueous
environments on Mars, biosignatures may be preserved within
authigenic mineral accumulations, such as hematite concretions.

http://sp.sepmonline.org/content/sepspecpub/sepsp102/1/SEC12.body.pdf

s

jonathan

unread,

Jul 3, 2015, 7:36:21 PM7/3/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

On Earth, unusual iron depositions such as
hematite spheres or banded formations are
generally associated with organic and
microbial activity.

Mars shows an incredible abundance of hematite
spheres with the evidence showing they formed
in warm mineral rich water ideal for microbes.

Their huge numbers, highly uniform size, shape and
distribution are patterns, but not wide-eyed
wishful thinking at all, but a real mystery
from another world that suggests a second
example of self organization (evolution) and
perhaps even first life.

A bird could fly past the rover camera, and
that would be fascinating, but it wouldn't
answer the real question, which is how did
life FIRST start.

Those spheres just might be the answer to that
question.

jonathan

unread,

Jul 3, 2015, 7:56:19 PM7/3/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

So we should start with the most complex to understand
the simplest then? Which is it?

The only way to do the latter is to shift
to my holistic hobby of complexity science and
learn the art of subjective mathematics.

Where causes are understood by the effects.
That's a giant leap, and an entirely different
world view.

>Explanations of these Martian spheres suffer from a lack of
> evidence typical of all newly discovered phenomena, magnified by
> having to remotely obtain that evidence.
>

Right, a genuine mystery, as I said in my original
post in this thread. A mystery that has the potential
to answer the question of all questions.

I find it astonishing that doesn't peak your curiosity
you seem to prefer to wait until someone gives you
the answer.

What's the fun in that? I want to figure it out by myself
to be first to figure out the answer.

Not last.

> Your post illustrates your characteristic unsupported hyperbole which
> rightfully qualifies you to be placed with anti-science Creationists.
>

You fail to understand my point entirely.
This is about creation, but using the abstract
form of neo-Darwinism. Abstract means it can
be applied to non-living systems such as
geochemistry with the same validity it can
be applied to ideas, or a largely unknown
distant planet. Or to life.

If you can't explain how a cloud, life and
an idea evolves using a single scientific
theory and language, you don't have a complete
or accurate theory of evolution.

jonathan

unread,

Jul 3, 2015, 8:16:19 PM7/3/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

New type of spheres found, well a couple of years ago!
I forgot about this pic...

"Crunchy on the outside, softer on the inside"
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mer/multimedia/pia16139.html

Mystery Spheres on Mars

Sept. 14, 2012: NASA's long-lived rover Opportunity has returned an
image of the Martian surface that is puzzling researchers.

Spherical objects concentrated at an outcrop called Kirkwood on the
western rim of Endeavour Crater differ in several ways from iron-rich
spherules nicknamed "blueberries" the rover found at its landing site in
early 2004.

"This is one of the most extraordinary pictures from the whole mission,"
said Opportunity's principal investigator, Steve Squyres of Cornell
University in Ithaca, N.Y. "Kirkwood is chock full of a dense
accumulation of these small spherical objects. Of course, we immediately
thought of the blueberries, but this is something different. We never
have seen such a dense accumulation of spherules in a rock outcrop on Mars."

Mystery Spheres on Mars (splash)

Using its Microscopic Imager, Opportunity photographed these small
spherical objects on Sept. 6, 2012. The view covers an area about 2.4
inches across at an outcrop called "Kirkwood" on the western rim of
Endeavour Crater.

Larger image

The spheres measure as much as one-eighth of an inch (3 millimeters) in
diameter. The analysis is still preliminary, but it indicates that these
spheres do not have the high iron content of Martian blueberries.
The Martian blueberries found elsewhere by Opportunity are concretions
formed by action of mineral-laden water inside rocks, evidence of a wet
environment on early Mars. Concretions result when minerals precipitate
out of water to become hard masses inside sedimentary rocks. Many of the
Kirkwood spheres are broken and eroded by the wind. Where wind has
partially etched them away, a concentric structure is evident.

Opportunity used the microscopic imager on its arm to look closely at
Kirkwood. Researchers checked the spheres' composition by using an
instrument called the Alpha Particle X-Ray Spectrometer on Opportunity's
arm.

"They seem to be crunchy on the outside, and softer in the middle,"
Squyres said. "They are different in concentration. They are different
in structure. They are different in composition. They are different in
distribution. So, we have a wonderful geological puzzle in front of us.
We have multiple working hypotheses, and we have no favorite hypothesis
at this time. It's going to take a while to work this out, so the thing
to do now is keep an open mind and let the rocks do the talking."

Just past Kirkwood lies another science target area for Opportunity. The
location is an extensive pale-toned outcrop in an area of Cape York
where observations from orbit have detected signs of clay minerals. That
may be the rover's next study site after Kirkwood. Four years ago,
Opportunity departed Victoria Crater, which it had investigated for two
years, to reach different types of geological evidence at the rim of the
much larger Endeavour Crater.

The rover's energy levels are favorable for the investigations. Spring
equinox comes this month to Mars' southern hemisphere, so the amount of
sunshine for solar power will continue increasing for months. Indeed,
Opportunity is on the verge of completing the first Martian Marathon.
"The rover is in very good health considering its 8-1/2 years of hard
work on the surface of Mars," said Mars Exploration Rover Project
Manager John Callas of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena,
Calif. "Energy production levels are comparable to what they were a full
Martian year ago, and we are looking forward to productive spring and
summer seasons of exploration."

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/14sep_mysteryspheres/

I should note Steve Squyres, the head of the rover
science team, is a geologist, as are all of the
rover scientists at the start.

Not a biologist among them, a point of contention
for many years now.

s

Mark Isaak

unread,

Jul 3, 2015, 8:46:19 PM7/3/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

On 7/3/15 4:12 PM, jonathan wrote:
> On 7/3/2015 2:06 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 7/2/15 3:31 PM, jonathan wrote:
>>>
>>> Please explain how erosion could create these spheres?
>>> And look closely at them, some look pristine, not
>>> eroded at all.
>>>
>>> http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/m/182/1M144339407EFF3370P2907M2M1.HTML
>>
>> The round and irregular ones are from two different sources.
>>
>> Incidentally, the snowman-like pebble shows that the roundness is from
>> concretion, not erosion, at least not entirely from erosion. My guess
>> is that it is a chemical accretion process, with wind shifting the
>> pebbles enough for concretion to occur fairly uniformly on all surfaces.
>> Note that this could also explain the irregular stones; they were not
>> round enough to get shifted by the wind.
>
> Hurricane wind speeds on Mars would feel like a 10 mph
> breeze on Earth. The air is 100 times thinner.
> Mars wind can raise dust off the surface, but
> moving pebbles would be pretty much impossible.

A wind which can raise dust can roll round stones on level ground.

Incidentally, are you familiar with the sailing stone of Racetrack
Playa? I think you underestimate the power of wind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racetrack_Playa#/media/File:Runningrock2.jpg

>>> How could erosion produce the teardrop shaped sphere
>>> lower left?
>>>
>>> http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/m/105/1M137503553EFF2208P2956M2M1.HTML
>>
>> Stream erosion in which the pebble, already with one longer axis, was in
>> a long furrow, so that it would be rolled more along its long axis than
>> another. The same principle might apply to wind erosion or concretion.
>
> It's thought they formed in wet soil, so the water would
> tend to be stationary.
>
>>> Or these spheres?
>>>
>>> http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/m/039/1M131648550EFF0544P2953M2M1.HTML
>>
>> The one with a flat "base" on its side looks like it stayed stationary
>> long enough to get concreted to a surface, but before too long,
>> something knocked it loose.
>
> Keep in mind erosional forces tend to produce a wide range
> of sizes and shapes, in this picture the spheres
> look remarkably identical in shape and size. That argues
> strongly against erosional forces, whether wind or water.

I have already determined that many of them, at least, are accretions,
not erosions.

Besides, erosional forces are good at sorting sizes.

> And there's just too many of them
>
> http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/180/1P144166325EFF3342P2537L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg
>
> The pic below is a crater wall with a significant slope
> yet they don't settle at the bottom.
>
> http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/123/tn/1P139098299EFF2809P2267L5M1_L2L5L5L6L6.jpg.html

It sounds like you have decided that they must be inexplicable, so any
explanation is ipso facto wrong. I readily agree that they may be
unexplained, but unexplained is not even in the same galaxy as inexplicable.

jonathan

unread,

Jul 3, 2015, 9:31:19 PM7/3/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

I bet if you read the excerpts from the papers below, you
might find a body of evidence is growing that all points
towards a stunning conclusion.

How self-organization or evolution first starts, how geology
makes the leap to biology is seen in those Martian spheres.
I've done my homework!

GROUNDWATER-FED IRON-RICH MICROBIAL MATS IN A FRESHWATER CREEK:
GROWTH CYCLES AND FOSSILIZATION POTENTIAL OF MICROBIAL FEATURES.

LAMINATION ON MARS!

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/136/tn/1P140262288EFF3174P2376L5M1_L2L5L5L7L7.jpg.html

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/013/tn/1P129343005EFF0300P2376L5M1_L2L5L5L7L7.jpg.

independent "origin" of Martian life.

Concretion preservation in the ancient rock provides a

Glenn

unread,

Jul 3, 2015, 10:46:18 PM7/3/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

"Mark Isaak" <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote in message news:mn7a42$q2d$1...@dont-email.me...

> A wind which can raise dust can roll round stones on level ground.
>

Think much?

passer...@gmail.com

unread,

Jul 4, 2015, 6:21:18 AM7/4/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

Yes, undoubtedly there was life on Mars, and still is under the ground. There are clear "fossilized" microbial mats on the surface.

And there's a lot of things rather stranger than the Marsberries. The Fugs for instance. (Little disc shaped critters all that's left is the holes like the victims of Pompeii. Older than the Marsberries, the holes they left have Marsberries growing in them.

And plenty of other rather strange shaped objects, that look exactly like fossils, and artifacts of intelligent life even.

No shortage of very suspicious stuff, but no smoking gun.

Nick Roberts

unread,

Jul 4, 2015, 7:51:18 AM7/4/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

In message <J7qdnVYbhqxEvQrI...@giganews.com>

You seem to get all warm and fuzzy at the idea of a "mystery". But to
put it less emotionally, it's simply something that as of now we don't
have a particularly satisfactory explanation for.

> I find it astonishing that doesn't peak your curiosity
> you seem to prefer to wait until someone gives you
> the answer.

That may be because we don't have access to all the information that
those working on the project do. In the absence of that information,
any explanation that anyone on this NG comes up with is informed only
by the limited information in the press releases.

> What's the fun in that? I want to figure it out by myself
> to be first to figure out the answer.

No you don't. You want to invest it with all sorts of woo and deep
mystical meaning, and make up deeply enthralling stories about it.

If/when it turns out to be simple geochemistry (that's looks different
to what happens on Earth because Earth has a much more reactive
environment) what are you going to do? Insist that "reductionist
science" doesn't understand it?

> > Your post illustrates your characteristic unsupported hyperbole
> > which rightfully qualifies you to be placed with anti-science
> > Creationists.
>
>
> You fail to understand my point entirely.
> This is about creation, but using the abstract
> form of neo-Darwinism. Abstract means it can
> be applied to non-living systems such as
> geochemistry with the same validity it can
> be applied to ideas, or a largely unknown
> distant planet. Or to life.
>
> If you can't explain how a cloud, life and
> an idea evolves using a single scientific
> theory and language, you don't have a complete
> or accurate theory of evolution.

Do I detect a tiny inkling of an understanding? Science isn't about
having a "complete or accurate theory" of pretty much anything.
Theories are all constrained and incomplete in one way or another, and
are accurate only insofar as they explain observations to date.

If you really want a theory that purports to explain everything
accurately, you're in the wrong room. This is Science - you want
Religion, two doors down the corridor.

--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.

jonathan

unread,

Jul 4, 2015, 8:31:18 AM7/4/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

On 7/3/2015 8:43 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:

> I have already determined that many of them, at least, are accretions,
> not erosions.
>
> Besides, erosional forces are good at sorting sizes.
>

Right, but here's a wonderful pic that shows
the kind of erosion, or lack of, these
spheres undergo.

In this pic, as the covering soil/rock layers
eroded away and exposed the spheres, fimd the rock
in the very right center.

See the bowl-shaped accumulation of spheres
where wind has obviously caused the spheres
to rattle around and carve out a little
hole for themselves?

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/020/tn/1P129964932EFF0352P2563L5M1_L4L5L6.jpg.html

Point is that's about it for ongoing erosion
the rest that didn't happen to find such an
opportunity have merely settled on low ground
only slightly worse off from their original
shape.

>> And there's just too many of them
>>
>> http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/180/1P144166325EFF3342P2537L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg
>>
>>
>> The pic below is a crater wall with a significant slope
>> yet they don't settle at the bottom.
>>
>> http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/123/tn/1P139098299EFF2809P2267L5M1_L2L5L5L6L6.jpg.html
>>
>
> It sounds like you have decided that they must be inexplicable, so any
> explanation is ipso facto wrong. I readily agree that they may be
> unexplained, but unexplained is not even in the same galaxy as
> inexplicable.
>

The point is in trying to rule out certain explanations
and focus on what's left. If you rule out simple
geological explanations for some observation from
....another planet, I think that's a big deal.

s

jonathan

unread,

Jul 4, 2015, 8:46:18 AM7/4/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

The estimate I read somewhere IIR was it would take
supersonic winds speeds on Mars to lift a 3mm...iron
concretion off the ground.

This picture shows how much wind can move
the spheres. The rock in the center right
where the wind has caused a handful of spheres
to carve out a little bowl for themselves.

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/020/tn/1P129964932EFF0352P2563L5M1_L4L5L6.jpg.html

That's about as far as they go, all the
rest merely found low ground and are still
in or near their original place and shape.
Most have changed little since formation
with the rounder and smoother ones being
the less eroded.

In this pic it looks clear the rounder
spheres are the less eroded.

http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/m/014/1M129426904EFF0300P2932M1M1.HTML

s

jonathan

unread,

Jul 4, 2015, 9:06:17 AM7/4/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

On 7/4/2015 6:57 AM, Nick Roberts wrote:

> If/when it turns out to be simple geochemistry (that's looks different
> to what happens on Earth because Earth has a much more reactive
> environment) what are you going to do? Insist that "reductionist
> science" doesn't understand it?
>

And if it turns out to be the answer to the question
of exactly how, where and when life first started?

> Science isn't about
> having a "complete or accurate theory" of pretty much anything.
> Theories are all constrained and incomplete in one way or another, and
> are accurate only insofar as they explain observations to date.
>

You're absolutely correct, science isn't about a
theory of everything. But it should be.

> If you really want a theory that purports to explain everything
> accurately, you're in the wrong room. This is Science - you want
> Religion, two doors down the corridor.
>

The two camps are 'orthogonal' perspectives of the
same thing. One reductionist, the other holistic.

It takes them both, at the same time, for the
complete explanation.

Resolving science and religion into a single view
which is consistent with both is straight forward.

If both methods are defined in term of their
respective methods of gathering data.
And their respective directions of causation.

Science

The tools of modern science combined with upward
causation, a constructionist approach.

Religion

Scripture combined with downward causation
a philosophical approach.

Keep what's correct and toss the rest.

Scientific methods are clearly better way
to gather data.

But since emergent properties define nature
and it's future paths, and emergence is
a property of /only/ the whole, we must
choose downward causation for our synthesis.

Toss scripture and toss upward causation.

Complexity Science

All the tools of modern science, but from
a systems or holistic perspective. Where
the fundamental laws must be rewritten from
the properties of the output, the effects.

From the most complex not the simplest.

s

jillery

unread,

Jul 4, 2015, 9:21:18 AM7/4/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

On Fri, 03 Jul 2015 19:55:06 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>

>> Nope. Explanations of these Martian spheres suffer from a lack of

>> evidence typical of all newly discovered phenomena, magnified by
>> having to remotely obtain that evidence.
>>
>
>
>

>So we should start with the most complex to understand
>the simplest then? Which is it?

NOTA. Unlike you, I don't assume that understanding the Martian
spheres is necessary to understanding the rest of the Universe.
Rather, I assume that understanding happens concurrently.

>The only way to do the latter is to shift
>to my holistic hobby of complexity science and
>learn the art of subjective mathematics.
>
>Where causes are understood by the effects.
>That's a giant leap, and an entirely different
>world view.
>
>
>

>Right, a genuine mystery, as I said in my original
>post in this thread. A mystery that has the potential
>to answer the question of all questions.
>
>I find it astonishing that doesn't peak your curiosity
>you seem to prefer to wait until someone gives you
>the answer.

And I find it astonishing that you're able to type while practicing
rectal asphyxiation.

>What's the fun in that? I want to figure it out by myself
>to be first to figure out the answer.
>
>Not last.

In your case, the operating adjective is "ever".

>> Your post illustrates your characteristic unsupported hyperbole which
>> rightfully qualifies you to be placed with anti-science Creationists.
>>
>
>
>You fail to understand my point entirely.

Yet another self-identified genius who conflates misunderstanding with
disagreement. I hope it's not contagious.

>This is about creation, but using the abstract
>form of neo-Darwinism. Abstract means it can
>be applied to non-living systems such as
>geochemistry with the same validity it can
>be applied to ideas, or a largely unknown
>distant planet. Or to life.
>
>If you can't explain how a cloud, life and
>an idea evolves using a single scientific
>theory and language, you don't have a complete
>or accurate theory of evolution.

It may turn out there is a single overarching theory of everything. If
so, the Martian balls will be evidence of one small part of it. But
the Universe is a very big place, and it has been around for a very
long time. There are many areas of study, and many ways to study each
one. Understanding any one area doesn't have to wait on any other
area.

jonathan

unread,

Jul 4, 2015, 10:31:19 AM7/4/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

There's a perfectly good reason why no smoking gun
for creation has been found, or will ever be
'objectively' found.

Creation, or emergence, is a property of the whole
not of any one of it's parts. And the possible choices
...NOT selected, the entire context, are part of the whole.
And an equally important aspect.

The past reveals only the choices that WERE selected.
So looking into the past it's impossible to
see the whole, the entire context from which
the decision was made.

When looking into the past, acts of creation or
speciation always seem to pop out of thin air
as if by magic.

But that's our fault for using the past
as a guide to the present and future.
It's a monstrous logical flaw to do so.

Only in the constantly changing and subjectively
observed present can the source of emergence
be seen. Only from the same can nature, the past
and future be understood in a scientific way.

s

>
>

passer...@gmail.com

unread,

Jul 4, 2015, 12:36:18 PM7/4/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

I don't think the are eroded. It's a phenomena from them growing. Starts out irregular, but the geometry makes it spherical as it gets bigger.

passer...@gmail.com

unread,

Jul 4, 2015, 12:46:17 PM7/4/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

What the heck is this thing?....
http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2013/02/curiosity-finds-a-curiosity-what-is-that/
http://www.universetoday.com/99750/another-weird-shiny-thing-on-mars-2/

And this thing, if on earth would you be certain it's a fossil?
http://www.enterprisemission.com/_articles/03-20-2004_Ignoring_Fossils_On_Mars/IgnoringFossilsOnMars.htm

And this one has the infamous Vugs, older than the Marsberries, who sometimes grow in the hold/impression of the Vug...
http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~weinberg/mars/$misc.html

And can't be, can it? But included for completeness, the carved column with the pictogryphs. If on Earth, would you think it was a natural formation?
http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/excitement-over-mars-petroglyph-latest-in-string-of-red-planet-alien-sightings/story-fnjwlcze-1227104470109

Bob Casanova

unread,

Jul 4, 2015, 12:51:17 PM7/4/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

On Fri, 3 Jul 2015 17:43:01 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net>:

That's my take on his position, too; it seems any
(currently) unexplained phenomenon must be an indication of
something "man was not meant to know", and thus a variant of
"god of the gaps".

passer...@gmail.com

unread,

Jul 4, 2015, 12:51:17 PM7/4/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

For instance, in a graphics program, such as Illustrator or AutoCad, you can tell it to draw a line, exactly 1mm or whatever, all the way around an object. Outline it so to speak. Then you can do the same thing to it, and on and on, one perfect 1mm distant line after the other. It will get closer and closer to a sphere, eventually becoming a perfect sphere.

Sneaky O. Possum

unread,

Jul 4, 2015, 12:56:17 PM7/4/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

Nick Roberts <tig...@orpheusinternet.co.uk> wrote in
news:41eadedd...@bc63.orpheusinternet.co.uk:

> In message <J7qdnVYbhqxEvQrI...@giganews.com>
> jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/3/2015 1:34 PM, jillery wrote:

[snip]

>> >Explanations of these Martian spheres suffer from a lack of
>> > evidence typical of all newly discovered phenomena, magnified by
>> > having to remotely obtain that evidence.
>> >
>> Right, a genuine mystery, as I said in my original
>> post in this thread. A mystery that has the potential
>> to answer the question of all questions.
>
> You seem to get all warm and fuzzy at the idea of a "mystery". But to
> put it less emotionally, it's simply something that as of now we don't
> have a particularly satisfactory explanation for.

And we can't get such an explanation without examining the evidence
directly. Since jonathan is the only person here who shows the requisite
intellectual curiosity, I propose that we set up a Kickstarter project to
send jonathan to Mars so he can investigate. What do you think? It's the
chance of a lifetime...
--
S.O.P.

Mark Isaak

unread,

Jul 4, 2015, 3:06:17 PM7/4/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

On 7/4/15 5:44 AM, jonathan wrote:
> On 7/3/2015 10:43 PM, Glenn wrote:
>>
>> "Mark Isaak" <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote in message
>> news:mn7a42$q2d$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>>> A wind which can raise dust can roll round stones on level ground.
>>>
>> Think much?
>>
>
>
>
> The estimate I read somewhere IIR was it would take
> supersonic winds speeds on Mars to lift a 3mm...iron
> concretion off the ground.

Now do some research on the wind speeds needed to transport particles by
means other than lifting.

Mark Isaak

unread,

Jul 4, 2015, 3:16:17 PM7/4/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

On 7/4/15 5:30 AM, jonathan wrote:
> On 7/3/2015 8:43 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>
>> I have already determined that many of them, at least, are accretions,
>> not erosions.
>>
>> Besides, erosional forces are good at sorting sizes.
>>
>
>
> Right, but here's a wonderful pic that shows
> the kind of erosion, or lack of, these
> spheres undergo.
>
> In this pic, as the covering soil/rock layers
> eroded away and exposed the spheres, fimd the rock
> in the very right center.
>
> See the bowl-shaped accumulation of spheres
> where wind has obviously caused the spheres
> to rattle around and carve out a little
> hole for themselves?
>
> http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/020/tn/1P129964932EFF0352P2563L5M1_L4L5L6.jpg.html
>
>
> Point is that's about it for ongoing erosion
> the rest that didn't happen to find such an
> opportunity have merely settled on low ground
> only slightly worse off from their original
> shape.

You are jumping to conclusions. Obviously the spheres have been
transported (since they sit atop at least two very different kinds of
materials, and it is unlikely that they formed identically in each).
Quite probably, some of them accumulated in an existing depression while
they were rolling along. It is entirely possible that they then
deepened the depression as you describe, but it is also possible that
they did not.

Nick Roberts

unread,

Jul 4, 2015, 5:06:16 PM7/4/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

In message <s_KdnfgvysCyRwrI...@giganews.com>

jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 7/4/2015 6:57 AM, Nick Roberts wrote:
>
>
> > If/when it turns out to be simple geochemistry (that's looks different
> > to what happens on Earth because Earth has a much more reactive
> > environment) what are you going to do? Insist that "reductionist
> > science" doesn't understand it?
> >
>
>
>
> And if it turns out to be the answer to the question
> of exactly how, where and when life first started?

The chances of there being any evidence of that is (to a very good
approximation) zero.

But I understand that you don't do evidence, just woo.

> > Science isn't about
> > having a "complete or accurate theory" of pretty much anything.
> > Theories are all constrained and incomplete in one way or another, and
> > are accurate only insofar as they explain observations to date.
> >
>
> You're absolutely correct, science isn't about a
> theory of everything. But it should be.

And that is exactly where you are wrong. Where science parts company
with previous attempts to explain Life, The Universe And Everything is
that everything in science is tentative.

Once you believe you have a complete and accurate theory of everything,
you have parted company with science:- after all, if you think you have
a complete and accurate theory of everything, why would you go any
further? You have discovered The Truth, which is death to any attempt
to investigate.

> > If you really want a theory that purports to explain everything
> > accurately, you're in the wrong room. This is Science - you want
> > Religion, two doors down the corridor.
> >
>
> The two camps are 'orthogonal' perspectives of the
> same thing. One reductionist, the other holistic.
>
> It takes them both, at the same time, for the
> complete explanation.

You go right ahead with the holistic explanation. I'm sure it's really
important to give you the warm fuzzies.

If, OTOH, you wish to explain some element of reality, every
explanation I've encountered that claims to be holistic has explained
far more about the explainer than it has about reality.

> Resolving science and religion into a single view
> which is consistent with both is straight forward.

Neither science no religion should wish to be integrated into a single
view: science deals with objective evidence, and religion with faith.

That doesn't mean that a single person can't have a view of each, but
good scientists check their religion in at the lab door, and good
theology requires that evidence is checked in at the church door.

> If both methods are defined in term of their
> respective methods of gathering data.
> And their respective directions of causation.
>
> Science
>
> The tools of modern science combined with upward
> causation, a constructionist approach.
>
> Religion
>
> Scripture combined with downward causation
> a philosophical approach.
>
> Keep what's correct and toss the rest.
>
> Scientific methods are clearly better way
> to gather data.
>
> But since emergent properties define nature
> and it's future paths, and emergence is
> a property of /only/ the whole, we must
> choose downward causation for our synthesis.
>
> Toss scripture and toss upward causation.
>
> Complexity Science
>
> All the tools of modern science, but from
> a systems or holistic perspective. Where
> the fundamental laws must be rewritten from
> the properties of the output, the effects.
>
> From the most complex not the simplest.

Yeah, yeah.

I always love it when people who have no detectable connection to
science and/or evidence start lecturing scientists on the way they
should do their business. Because they have _such_ a huge body of
successful explanation of reality to point to in support of their
ideas.

Nick Roberts

unread,

Jul 4, 2015, 5:06:17 PM7/4/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

In message <XnsA4CD6480CB104sn...@213.239.209.88>

Does 500 UKP seem like a reasonable contribution from me?

jonathan

unread,

Jul 5, 2015, 5:56:15 AM7/5/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

On 7/4/2015 3:01 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 7/4/15 5:44 AM, jonathan wrote:
>> On 7/3/2015 10:43 PM, Glenn wrote:
>>>
>>> "Mark Isaak" <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote in message
>>> news:mn7a42$q2d$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>>> A wind which can raise dust can roll round stones on level ground.
>>>>
>>> Think much?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The estimate I read somewhere IIR was it would take
>> supersonic winds speeds on Mars to lift a 3mm...iron
>> concretion off the ground.
>
> Now do some research on the wind speeds needed to transport particles by
> means other than lifting.
>

Since the one paper I cited estimated such spheres
could form in a few thousand years, that pretty much
limits other forms of transport to ice and water.

The research indicates they probably formed just
underground and mostly in place. And if that's true,
the highly uniform spacing and uniform sizes strongly
suggests they self organized.

s

jonathan

unread,

Jul 5, 2015, 6:16:15 AM7/5/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

Well it's called a lag deposit, if the spheres
formed within a rock or soil layer, and the layer
erodes away, the harder spheres are all that's
left behind. They'd just find the lower ground
and that's about it.

In this pic it appears to show simple wind blown
dunes, dunes which dominate the vast fields of
Meridiani.

Dune
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/569/tn/1P178697872EFF5900P2599L5M1_L2L5L5L7L7.jpg.html

But when you look closer, those dunes are
actually crusted over with an almost uniform
coating of spheres. See the two following pics
that are increasingly closer views of the dunes.

Close
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/440/tn/1P167246122ESF55B0P2596L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg.html

Closer
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/505/tn/1P173013913EFF55VWP2559L5M1_L2L5L5L6L6.jpg.html

From horizon to horizon that area of Meridiani
is almost entirely coated with spheres.

Sphere crusted clay-like soil.
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/842/tn/1P202931334EFF71HUP2422L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg.html

and it is unlikely that they formed identically in each).
> Quite probably, some of them accumulated in an existing depression while
> they were rolling along. It is entirely possible that they then
> deepened the depression as you describe, but it is also possible that
> they did not.
>

The rover science team identified that bowl shape
as a result of wind and the spheres.

jonathan

unread,

Jul 5, 2015, 6:21:15 AM7/5/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

On 7/4/2015 12:51 PM, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
> Nick Roberts <tig...@orpheusinternet.co.uk> wrote in
> news:41eadedd...@bc63.orpheusinternet.co.uk:
>
>> In message <J7qdnVYbhqxEvQrI...@giganews.com>
>> jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/3/2015 1:34 PM, jillery wrote:
> [snip]
>>>> Explanations of these Martian spheres suffer from a lack of
>>>> evidence typical of all newly discovered phenomena, magnified by
>>>> having to remotely obtain that evidence.
>>>>
>>> Right, a genuine mystery, as I said in my original
>>> post in this thread. A mystery that has the potential
>>> to answer the question of all questions.
>>
>> You seem to get all warm and fuzzy at the idea of a "mystery". But to
>> put it less emotionally, it's simply something that as of now we don't
>> have a particularly satisfactory explanation for.
>
> And we can't get such an explanation without examining the evidence
> directly.

Opportunity has been crawling across Mars for 11 years now
and MSL is there too. That's a ton of evidence.

And since when is science not about trying to answer a mystery?

s

jillery

unread,

Jul 5, 2015, 9:36:15 AM7/5/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 06:19:00 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

So the science and scientists you disparage have nevertheless provided
you a mystery, a ton of evidence, and several plausible solutions
which explain both. One can only wonder what rational basis you have
for your complaints.

jonathan

unread,

Jul 5, 2015, 10:31:15 AM7/5/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

Because the plausible explanations are consistent
with life, not geology, that's why.

s

jonathan

unread,

Jul 5, 2015, 11:31:15 AM7/5/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

On 7/4/2015 12:42 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:

> What the heck is this thing?....
> http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2013/02/curiosity-finds-a-curiosity-what-is-that/
> http://www.universetoday.com/99750/another-weird-shiny-thing-on-mars-2/
>

Oh ya the 'spheres on a stick', they found a few of those.
The spheres are harder than the surrounding rocks
due to the high iron content, so they sometimes
act like a capstone.

> And this thing, if on earth would you be certain it's a fossil?
> http://www.enterprisemission.com/_articles/03-20-2004_Ignoring_Fossils_On_Mars/IgnoringFossilsOnMars.htm
>

If you look at the entire pic...
http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/m/034/1M131201699EFF0500P2933M2M1.JPG

You'll see a couple of spheres embedded in the softer rock
layer. It appears there used to be a sphere in that
hole which eroded out. The segmented appearance is
due to the finely laminated rocks

Here's a nice image below showing how the rocks are
eroding out of the laminations. And a considerable
amount of discussion was generated by the fact
the spheres are larger in diameter than a single
lamination.

That's a HUGE problem when trying to explain them
with geological processes.
..
If they formed like any other mineral concretion
the spheres should form within a single layer
not transpose several as they routinely do.

http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/m/152/1M141691416EFF3200P2907M2M1.HTML

> And this one has the infamous Vugs, older than the Marsberries, who sometimes grow in the hold/impression of the Vug...
> http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~weinberg/mars/$misc.html
>

Here's a nice pic of the vugs, whatever used to be
in those slashes was obviously much softer than
the surrounding rock and it eroded away.

I haven't heard of any ideas of what used
to be in those slashes. One of the more
interesting open mysteries from the
rovers, btw

Although I have seen an image of a microbial
sea ice community on Earth associated with
glaciation made those kind of slash marks.

http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/m/028/1M130673077EFF0454P2933M2M1.HTML

> And can't be, can it? But included for completeness, the carved column with the pictogryphs. If on Earth, would you think it was a natural formation?
> http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/excitement-over-mars-petroglyph-latest-in-string-of-red-planet-alien-sightings/story-fnjwlcze-1227104470109
>

It's just a basalt rock, these Mars pics are a bit
like a Rorschach test, it's easy to see what you
want to see in them.

Maybe one of the most amusing finds was the
famous 'Bunny'spotted early on that caused
a stir even with the Nasa science team.

http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/spotlight/opportunity/b19_20040304.html

So they they decided to investigate with a closer image
but an even greater mystery arose since by then
....IT WAS GONE!

What? Did it walk away?

Turned out to be debris from the lander that the wind
carried off after the original image.
That was a fun one though!

s

Sneaky O. Possum

unread,

Jul 5, 2015, 11:36:14 AM7/5/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Kv-dnbObz84OmQTI...@giganews.com:

...that we can't examine directly.

Since you're the only person here who shows the requisite

intellectual curiosity, I propose that we set up a Kickstarter project

to send you to Mars so you can investigate. What do you think? It's the
chance of a lifetime...

> And since when is science not about trying to answer a mystery?

Exactly! You're the only real scientist here. Therefore you should be
the one to get up there and try to answer that mystery. Let's get on
this!
--
S.O.P.

jillery

unread,

Jul 5, 2015, 6:21:15 PM7/5/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 10:28:53 -0400, jonathan <Wr...@Instead.com>
wrote:

Even assuming that's true, how is your explanation any more consistent
with geology?

As an unrelated aside, "Mars geology" is a bit of a contradiction of
terms, like "Creation Science". As research on exoplanets becomes
more common, a word which refers to the study of extraterrestrial
rocks, or at least one that doesn't identify Earth specifically, will
become more useful.

jonathan

unread,

Jul 5, 2015, 8:01:14 PM7/5/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

Or maybe I just want to see if anyone has a different view
or can pole holes in my opinion. If you think I'm wrong about
this-or-that then let's hear it, if you agree then they've
found something magnificent on Mars.

But all I hear is complaining, nothing about Mars or any
of the topics this thread has raised such as geology,
geochemistry, self-organization and so on.

s

jonathan

unread,

Jul 5, 2015, 8:06:14 PM7/5/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

It's all fused into the field of astrobiology, Mars
showed any single discipline like geology or biology
is insufficient, as the interesting aspects lie
at the transition between them. Not in either one.

Before Opportunity landed the astrobiology conference
consisted of a couple dozen posters mostly by
wide-eyed graduate students. The discover on Mars
caused the field to explode like few others, into
this, click the 'abstracts' link...

Astrobiology Science Conference 2012
Exploring Life: Past and Present, Near and Far
http://abscicon2012.arc.nasa.gov/

s

RSNorman

unread,

Jul 5, 2015, 8:51:15 PM7/5/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 20:01:32 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>

This, of course, is totally unlike paleontology which is more often
part of a geology department even though it deals with biological
evolution. Or biochemistry. Or biophysics. Or physical chemistry
(or is it chemical physics?) Or brain studies which combine
psychology, biology, physiology, neurology, psychiatry,....

Gee, it seems that interdepartmental studies have been going on for a
hundred or more years, now!

passer...@gmail.com

unread,

Jul 5, 2015, 9:31:13 PM7/5/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

No, that's not a sphere on a stick, no sphere there at all. It's something else entirely. And there's no layered mud, just Vug holes.

The big Marsberries are more round because things get more round as they grow, it's geometry, not erosion. That's almost certain.

jillery

unread,

Jul 6, 2015, 12:51:12 AM7/6/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 19:56:12 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

There's your problem; rectal asphyxiation restricts your hearing as
well as impairs your comprehension.

>nothing about Mars or any
>of the topics this thread has raised such as geology,
>geochemistry, self-organization and so on.

Your OP included this bald assertion:

******************************

If these simple objects can't be explained
by 'modern' science, then attempting to explain
the creation of far more complex things such as
life and intelligence is scientific folly.

*******************************

Given that, it should be no surprise that others reasonably, and
apparently correctly, assumed your interest lay not in those things
you listed above. Despite that, many posters mentioned them anyway.
--

passer...@gmail.com

unread,

Jul 6, 2015, 8:21:12 AM7/6/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

They found life on that comet...

http://news.sky.com/story/1514080/alien-life-on-philae-comet-scientists-say

Sneaky O. Possum

unread,

Jul 6, 2015, 1:36:11 PM7/6/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:-qWdnYE6ftiGWQTI...@giganews.com:

So you're not interested in science, then? I apologize for the error.
--
S.O.P.

Bob Casanova

unread,

Jul 6, 2015, 1:41:11 PM7/6/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 18:18:47 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Until a general term emerges ("extraterrestriology" seems a
bit cumbersome), "areology", "selenology", etc., would be
useful.

Bob Casanova

unread,

Jul 6, 2015, 1:51:10 PM7/6/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 09:48:39 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Fri, 3 Jul 2015 17:43:01 -0700, the following appeared in
>talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
><eci...@curioustax.onomy.net>:

[regarding "gee-whiz" posts by jonathan]

>>It sounds like you have decided that they must be inexplicable, so any
>>explanation is ipso facto wrong. I readily agree that they may be
>>unexplained, but unexplained is not even in the same galaxy as inexplicable.

>That's my take on his position, too; it seems any
>(currently) unexplained phenomenon must be an indication of
>something "man was not meant to know", and thus a variant of
>"god of the gaps".

I suggest jonathan take a look at this...

http://xkcd.com/1547/

....in order to assimilate additional "food for thought". And
we all know what follows assimilation...

jonathan

unread,

Jul 8, 2015, 7:31:04 PM7/8/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

Thank you for the correction.

s

jonathan

unread,

Jul 8, 2015, 7:36:06 PM7/8/15

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

Apology accepted. You're obviously not interested
in scientific mysteries, such as why are people
like you so incredibly...ah...well...it wouldn't
be polite to say, why are people like you so
incredibly eh hum courteous and informative.

Ya ya that's it...courteous and informative.

s