Don’t let the Big Science Cartel
lead you down the primrose path.
Hypotheticals are not science.

Martian Mudstone Evidence is a Potential Biosignature (Stony Brook Univ News, 10 Sept 2025). Reporters and press offices treat the public like cattle tempted by a flake of hay to follow them into the consensus corral. Don’t be a dumb animal walking into an artificial enclosure. Use your mind when you read.

While the research team is not claiming to have found some form of fossilized life on Mars, they do believe the rocks contain features that could have been formed by life – a potential biosignature.

Might is not right. Could is not good. Potential is not actual. What does the evidence show? Read their bullet points. Not one of them is conclusive. They’re all subjective. Redox reactions are very common in chemistry; that proves nothing about life. Notice the high perhapsimaybecouldness index: their observations of a certain formation “challenge some aspects of a purely abiotic explanation, and thus the researchers suggest that the iron and sulfur and phosphorus-bearing nodules and reaction fronts should be considered a potential biosignature” – to which we respond, it must be funding time at NASA, and Stony Brook wants a piece of the action.

Redox-driven mineral and organic associations in Jezero Crater, Mars (Hurowitz et al., Nature, 10 Sept 2025). This is the research paper with almost a hundred authors wanting their slice of the pie. The paper is saturated with possibility thinking: e.g., potential, possible, interpret, etc. Nothing is for certain in the deep-time evolutionists’ imaginations. If some Martian mudstone is analogous to Earth’s mudstone that contains microbes, then Mars “might” have microbes, too. The error in that syllogism should be obvious. Their actual evidence has nothing to do with biology: “we interpret the Bright Angel formation [not the one on Earth, but one they gave the same name to on Mars] to have formed from sedimentary processes that included weathering, erosion, transport and deposition from water by fallout from suspension and energetic currents or debris flows, forming mudstone and coarser-grained and conglomeratic lithologies, respectively.” Well, fine. So what? That happens to dead mud. We don’t want “potential” biosignatures. We want evidence for “actual biology.” Oh, but they found it! It’s out there in futureware, where imagineers will show it to you, given taxpayer funds.

Many significant questions remain about the origin of the nodules and reaction fronts encountered by Perseverance. We suggest that further in situ, laboratory, modelling and field analogue research into both abiotic and biological processes that give rise to the suite of mineral and organic phases observed in the Bright Angel formation will improve our understanding of the conditions under which they formed. Ultimately, the return of samples from Mars for study on Earth, including the Sapphire Canyon sample collected from the Bright Angel formation, would provide the best opportunity to understand the processes that gave rise to the unique features described here.

Ah yes, understanding, the perennial promise of Darwin’s cult followers that never arrives. The public would not be tempted to spend money on this if they just wanted to look at dried mud, so the cultists dress it up with astrobiology fluff, calling it “potential biosignatures.” Don’t fall for the materialist Kool-Aid.

Mystery Martian minerals hint at the planet’s complex geochemical past (Nature, 10 Sept 2025). As is customary, Darwin salespeople come alongside the astrobiologists to encourage you to invest in their latest scheme. Here, Janice Bishop and Mario Parente fulfill that role, tempting readers with “mystery Marian minerals” to get us to fork over our money.

The findings shed light on the remarkable complexity of the oxidation-reduction (redox) chemistry that took place on ancient Mars, and might provide a fresh perspective on prebiotic chemical processes—reactions that could form a basis for the emergence of life.

Look; if NASA wants to advertise other reasons for exploring Mars, so that we can stop imagining things and get some ground truth about its geology, that would be honest. But the incessant titillation about “the emergence” of life from mud is a scam. Would you call beach sand a “pre-computer” technosignature, saying it “sheds light” on the emergence of information technology? Should we spend taxpayer funds on a mission to look at Martian sand to gain “understanding” of computers? What if they told us that it “could form a basis for the emergence” of Martian LLMs (artificial intelligence) because scientists “believe” that somehow computers emerged from sand by chance, without any foresight or design? What’s the difference from this claim? Only that life is far more complex than computers!

Predictably, all the Big Science Media lemmings jumped on this noisy bandwagon:

NASA hasn’t found life on Mars yet – but signs are promising (New Scientist, 10 Sept 2025). For shame, Matthew Sparkes. You’re acting like a materialist Pied Piper, a snake-oil salesman, or a charlatan. You should be calling out these pseudoscientists (bio-astrologers) at NASA and Stony Brook.

A rock found last year on the surface of Mars offered tantalising evidence that life once existed on the Red Planet. Now scientists have found yet more evidence that could point to the existence of ancient organisms – but we can’t know for certain without returning samples to Earth.

Did NASA’s Perseverance rover actually find evidence of life on Mars? We need to haul its samples home to find out, scientists say (Space.com, 10 Sept 2025). Ditto, reporter Mike Wall. How can you look yourself in the mirror for being such a toady? Get your pants on and demand accountability from the bio-astrologers, preferably after you have studied philosophy of science and the tactics of charlatans for awhile. You should act like an investigative reporter and call balls and strikes, not just take a scientist’s word for an vapid evidence-free claim.

Life on Mars? ‘Leopard-spot’ rocks could be biggest clue yet (BBC News, 10 Sept 2025). Rebecca Morelle illustrates that suckerdom is an equal-opportunity flaw, knowing no gender or national boundaries.  “It’s possible the minerals were produced by natural geological processes, but at a press conference Nasa said the features could be the clearest signs of life ever found.” Oh barf. What a pity that Sean Duffy, the acting NASA director, caved to the bio-astrologers in an embedded video clip. Apparently he has not watched these hydrobioscopy ad campaigns come and go for 25 years, never yielding the coveted “understanding” or seeing the “light” that they promised to shed. It’s likely he doesn’t want to cross the bio-astrologers at NASA for fear of being accused of being one of those “anti-science” Trump administrators.

Signs of ancient life may have been found in Martian rock – new study (The Conversation, 10 Sept 2025). Sean McMahon (Univ of Edinburgh) does a little bit of a better job explaining the data, and shows a little more scientific logic (see 2nd paragraph below):

Without getting samples back to laboratories on Earth, there’s only so much we can really know about what happened at Cheyava Falls four billion years ago. Even so, no entirely satisfying non-biological explanation accounts for the full suite of observations made by Perseverance.

The new paper does a good job of making this clear, considering the possibilities one by one. But in astrobiology, the lack of a non-biological explanation isn’t where life detection ends – it’s where it begins. History tells us that when we can’t think of a non-biological explanation for something, it’s usually not because there isn’t one. It’s just that we haven’t thought of it yet.

So what happens next? First, astrobiologists around the world must explore which oxidation-reduction reactions involving iron, sulphur, organic compounds, and phosphate can occur with and without biology under conditions relevant to Cheyava Falls.

They can do these experiments on Earth (remember the flap about phosphine at Venus proving life there?). They can watch Dr James Tour, who will rule out life “emerging” on Mars by materialist processes, and save them a lot of time wasted on hopeless quests.

At the end of his article, like the others, McMahon argues that the only way to be sure is to spend tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money on a Mars sample return mission. Why? “the payoff could be the most important scientific discovery ever made.” No, it would not be. The most important scientific discovery ever made was that our finely-tuned universe, Earth, biosphere, and human minds are all intelligently designed. If the Martian soil turns out to be lifeless, the payoff would be the biggest scientific boondoggle ever made.

Other Astrobiology Fluff and Upsets

Asteroid Ryugu once had liquid water flowing through it (New Scientist, 10 Sept 2025). This piece by James Woodford is all upset and no certainty. A flawed dating technique based on isotope ratios is used to reinterpret a flawed theory about the origin of the solar system. If you don’t start with deep time and naturalism, the findings have a different explanation that doesn’t get revised with every new observation. The research paper in Nature says they were off by 300%: “Our results imply that carbonaceous planetesimals accreted by the terrestrial planets could have retained not only hydrous minerals but also aqueous water, leading to an upwards revision of the inventory of their water delivery by a factor of two to three.” They replace one myth with another myth. Why trust these materialists?

Asteroid Bennu contains stardust that’s older than the solar system (Space.com, 2 Sept 2025). Scientists do not observe this asteroid’s history. They see what it is today. And what it is does not match what they expected it should be.

“The surface weathering at Bennu is happening a lot faster than conventional wisdom would have it,” Lindsay Keller, a scientist at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston who led the paper on space weathering, said in a statement.

Conventional wisdom, a sophoxymoronic phrase, is neither conventional nor wisdom. It means what experts believe. They were wrong about Bennu, so now a new myth about its history is required. Behold: it’s older than the whole solar system! Note to historians of science: the experts did not expect this. But now look at their chutzpah:

“Space weathering is an important process that affects all asteroids, and with returned samples, we can tease out the properties controlling it and use that data and extrapolate it to explain the surface and evolution of asteroid bodies that we haven’t visited,” Keller added.

Everything evolves, including expert imaginations.

Study Questions Ocean Origin of Organics in Enceladus’s Plumes  (Europlanet, 9 Sept 2025). Surprise: all that hype about life at Enceladus, the tiny moon of Saturn erupting like gangbusters, may have just gotten flushed. The “organic” molecules (if you consider methane and CO2 to be biosignatures) do not come from down deep in an unobservable ocean where mythical microbes might be swimming around. Instead, sunlight forms the molecules at the surface.

Organic molecules detected in the watery plumes that spew out from cracks in the surface of Enceladus could be formed through exposure to radiation on Saturn’s icy moon, rather than originating from deep within its sub-surface ocean. The findings, presented during the EPSC–DPS2025 Joint Meeting in Helsinki this week, have repercussions for assessing the habitability of Enceladus’s ocean.

A related article on Space.com says that the new study “complicates the search” for life.

“Although this doesn’t rule out the possibility that Enceladus’ ocean may be habitable, it does mean we need to be cautious in making that assumption just because of the composition of the plumes.”

We were right; they were wrong. Enceladus is dead. It has very interesting geophysics, but it’s dead.

Big Science Media, you need CEH to get you back on track. You’re on a detour into materialist Fantasyland, where endless snipe hunts are justified by imagining that miracles of emergence “might” provide “understanding” or “shed light” on evolution. You’re wondering in the dark, and we’re trying to get your blinders off so you can see the sunshine all around you. I worked at JPL and listened to the bio-astrologers regularly (I could name some big names). At their talks I would ask hard questions, which they could not answer.

Take courage and walk out of the fogma. You won’t miss it. You’ll see clearly for the first time.

(Visited 1 times, 7 visits today)