According to a BBC News article, Nasa’s experiment last month to find water on the Moon was a major success. The space agency smashed a rocket and a probe into a large crater at the lunar south pole, hoping to kick up ice. Scientists who have studied the data now say instruments trained on the impact plume saw copious quantities of water-ice and water vapour.
So what does this mean for us? Though we know the moon is devoid of life, the fact that water has been found on it means that this substance could be found on other planets. And water is, of course, is the only substance known to support living organisms.
This leads us to an interesting observation. After decades of finding that space is devoid of life, scientists which often mock the notion of a God as Creator, believe they may have found the answer: redefine “life.”
Why? Because surely if life springs forth as a result of evolution, we would see it developing somewhere else in the universe in addition to our rather tiny planet. Yet, despite the billions spent on deep space telescopes, manned missions to space, probes to Mars—and despite seeing galaxies farther away than anyone thought possible—no one has found even a blade of grass, much less sentient life.
And so the National Academies of Science has have come up with a novel approach to the problem: simply redefine what the word life means. Their report gives the following criteria for life as an alternative to nasa’s current expectations:
- A thermodynamic disequilibrium of some sort, from which energy can be harvested
- A chemical environment that allows the persistence of covalent bonds
- A liquid environment
- A molecular inheritance system that can support Darwinian evolution
With these dumbed down criteria, the proper conditions for life in space have already been found. Most places in the universe have some sort of thermodynamic disequilibrium, and many have liquids—just not water. And so the ultimate claim of scientists is that living organisms could develop in conditions completely foreign to Earth. And now that nasa has new criteria available for its use, they continue to find no life outside of their own globe of existence.
The next question then begs – why make such a profound push to find life in space? Because the evolutionary theory depends on it. If life really evolves, the evolution of life in space would be scientifically equivalent to the coming of the Messiah. Scientists hold their beliefs about the origins of life on faith—and the emptiness of space proves it.
Instead of redefining life in a pathetic attempt to plug holes in the evolutionary dogma, we should ask instead why space is devoid of life. Look the obvious in the face and try to define it first, rather than chasing the evolutionary tail.
Even religious teachers offer no reasonable answers as to why God created an entire universe filled with stars, planets, black holes, comets and nebulae—and then left it vacant except for a single planet in the Milky Way. Many now try to marry the evolutionary theory with a concept of creation, making God out to be a complete liar.
But there are definitive answers in the Bible which help us to better understand why science can’t answer fundamental questions—and how this links to your incredible human potential. All you have to do is read this book.
The Apple Of God's Eye 