Recently the news media reported that NASA scientists had proven life had existed on Mars. Whether you agree or disagree with any statement on science, there is one vital method of inquiry you should do every time you read about a new scientific discovery:

1) Determine what is observed data

2) Determine what is assumed

Lets look at what was observed:

a) A meteorite the size of a potato was found in Antarctica in 1984.

b) Electron Microscopic observation revealed a tube like structure. The diameter of the tube was 1/100th the size of a human hair.

c) The meteorite had ‘PAH’s" (organic molecules formed when microorganisms die and decompose).

Lets look at what is assumed:

a) 3.6 billion years ago, Mars had a watery environment that was able to support life. Comment: How did they arrive at the 3.6 billion year date? (for free info on the numerous assumptions used in any dating method call 714 898-8331) Evolutionists disagree on the supposed early environment on earth; for them to assume Mar’s early environment is an even bigger reach.

b) The seas on Mars disappeared and Mars lost its atmosphere. 16 million years ago a huge asteroid smashed into Mars and sprayed fragments outside of its gravitational field and into space. Comment: How did they arrive at this 16 million year date? Was new matter formed when this collision occurred making it possible to date the meteor). Also, imagine the remote physical possibility of a collision causing material to achieve a velocity great enough to leave Mars’ gravitational field.

c) 13,000 years ago the meteor crashed into Antarctica. Comment: How do they know it came from Mars? They say gases in the meteor are similar to gases on Mars discovered by the Viking landers in 1976....WAIT! I thought the environment on Mars was constantly changing! Is the 1976 environment the same as the environment 16 million years ago? How do they know what gases existed on Mars 16 million years ago? The gases found in the "Mars meteorite" are also common to other meteorites .

d) The fossil was once living. The main "evidence" being: it looks remarkably lifelike." Comment: Remember, all this excitement is over a tiny tiny tube structure in a rock. William Schopf, from UCLA, an expert in microfossils, thinks the tube was dried mud. He noted there is not a shred of evidence of a cell, and the tube (supposed life) is many times smaller than similar life on earth.

PAH’s are commonly found in meteorites. It is misleading for scientists to state that the presence of PAH’s in the meteor is strong evidence it contained living matter.

Conclusion: Decide for yourself if the assumptions fit the data. I find the conclusion that life existed on Mars to be not supported by the evidence. So you may ask, why would they present this conclusion? I think the answer is obvious, scientists are people, they want to work and they don’t mind a little recognition. NASA is dying for funding. The big buck SETI project (search for ET phoning home) is near death, and this could give it many years of funding. President Clinton gleefully endorsed further research which would include several trips to Mars. I am hardly against space research, but I hope it is not based on a tiny tube found in Antarctica.

Don’t forget the axiom "publish or perish." PhD’s must present new material or their careers stagnate. I feel this motivates these data poor imagination rich claims, and besides, it would be exciting to be in Time Magazine!