Why Did Mars Die?

Mars had lost its magnetosphere about 4 billion years ago when the planets were just completing formation. The problem with a planet without a large molten core is that it will not act as a dynamo to generate a magnetic field. Earth has a significant molten core to generate a dynamo and thus a magnetic field and that protects the Earth from deadly rays generated within the Sun. Mars is bombarded by cosmic rays that is deadly to life. Although still speculative, there may be a rejuvenation of the dynamo on Mars through some pressure and chemical reaction outside of the core but also near the core of Mars. It may be that Mars is too small to hold on to things in the atmosphere including water vapour. But without a magnetosphere, life will be just too precarious to exist on Mars. Perhaps a future generation will find some method to protect the atmosphere and life on Mars. Don't be an early suicidal pioneer. The million dollar question remains; did life ever exist on Mars?

Mars didn't encounter a "Big Splat" as Earth did (thus creating our Moon) which ADDED iron and nuclear metals to its core. Hence, Earth has a larger IRON core than normal. Thus, Mars didn't DIE, it simply wasn't BIG enough to live.

Au contrare. Mars was struck at least twice in its early history by two very large asteroids, the second impact from an asteroid nearly the size of the United States. That impact almost destroyed the planet and Mars has never quite recovered - it is still slightly oblong, somewhat egg-shaped with the major axis along the impact trajectory. You can still see the evidence, even today: the shockwave travelled through the planet and converged at a point on the opposite side, creating Olympus Mons in the process and, if you follow a line from Olympus Mons through the planet's center to roughly the opposite side, you can see the remains of the impact, a mare which was originally a sea of molten lava, melted by the impact. Mars is lucky to still be a planet.

Mars began losing its atmosphere once it had cooled to where it lost its magnetic field, about 4 Gyr ago, losing its atmosphere through a process called 'sputtering.' No longer protected from the solar wind by the planet's magnetic field, Mars' atmosphere began to erode, carried away by the solar wind. The same fate awaits Earth. Our magnetosphere diverts most of the solar wind harmlessly around the planet, but when Earth cools to the point where we lose our magnetic field, we'll begin losing our atmosphere as well.

Then we'll hear about AGC, with some notions of how we caused it.

I'm hoping the species that replaces ours will have more sense.

Surely that should be "some sense"?

I was including the outliers.

Mars simply isn't massive enough to hold onto an atmosphere over a geologically long period of time. (Atmospheric Jeans escape.)

It could be terraformed and given an oxygen-nitrogen-CO₂ atmosphere, but the atmosphere would have to be replenished since it would slowly escape into space.

It's interesting to read these "grasping at straw" explanations for why Mars is as it is. The supposition that the planet is hundreds of millions or billions of years old is funny. Maybe it is the way it is because that is the way it was desinged to be?

"that is the way it was desinged to be?"

You mean "designed to appear older than it is along with physical laws designed to reinforce that illusion?"

In other words, Intelligent Deception?

The theory that the Universe is billions of years old isn't accurate and has never been shown to be so. The processes of determining age aren't accurate so it is easy to use those faulty numbers and make broad sweeping statements and guessing explanations for the state of things.

The concept of "Intelligent Design" don't conflict with Natural Laws or Physical Laws.

An example of determining age through Carbon Dating being wrong and faulty is from when Mt. St. Helens erupted a number of years ago. Geological formations that were formed in a matter of months were carbon dated as being tens of thousands of years old.

"The processes of determining age aren't accurate so it is easy to use those faulty numbers and make broad sweeping statements and guessing explanations for the state of things."

Then

1) what measures are you using if the others aren't accurate?

2) How do you know for a fact that they aren't? If the others aren't accurate then it is quite possible the Universe is older than it appears, yes? That 'inaccuracy' sword cuts both ways.

3) What are those other, inaccurate measures? You mentioned carbon dating, but that is only one technique among many.

4) How old is the Universe according to your 'accurate' measures, and

5) how did you verify this? Against what standard did you calibrate yours?

Recorded history is a great way to determine age and that is done mostly through the Biblical account of history. Although there is a vast amount of extra-Biblical documentation that records and details events and people recorded in the Biblical account.

Since you probably will discount the Biblical account as legitimate anything else that is said would probably be a moot point to you. Although that account of history is fully supported through studies in anthropology, archaeology, astronomy, natural and physical laws, etc.

The historical evidence is the same for every person that looks at it. It is the perspective of the person that leads them to a particular conclusion. If one is anti-God as the Creator, in their perspective they will discount any evidence that points to an Intelligent Design and Designer and seek to explain away that evidence.

"Since you probably will discount the Biblical account as legitimate ..."

You have no idea what I will 'probably do.' None whatsoever.

I think I probably do. due to the comments made in your previous Post about "Intelligent Deception".

I have no problem with God the Creator. I have serious problems with anyone using carbon dating on lava. I'd doubt any dating technique would provide meaningful results on something as recent as Mt St Helens event you mention. That's like trying to measure how thick a piece of paper is by using a beat up old yard stick with rounded corners and markings only down to a sixteenth of an inch. You gotta use the right tool or test for the job.

Carbon dating isn't for rocks and minerals. I don't know how old you are, but I can guess your age with more accuracy than carbon dating would. I would pick any age from 20 to 100 years and be closer than the finest carbon dating technique in the world. Every measurement method has uncertainty. Any measurement given without a clear statement of the uncertainty is incomplete.

Makes me think of the old story about the docent at the Natural History Museum describing the large piece of petrified wood on display:

"This magnificent example was found in the American Southwest and is known to be 15,075 years old."

The vistor asked, "How can you be so precise in knowing how old it is?"

"Well," says the docent, "the museum records show that the geologists who donated it said it was 15,000 years old, and the museum has had it on display for 75 years, so..."

The accuracy of a radiometric dating method is not constant over the method's range and depends in part on the half-life of the radioactive isotope involved, and in part on the actual age of the (dead) organism. For instance, ¹⁴C has a half-life of 5,730 years. After an organism has been dead for 60,000 years, so little ¹⁴C is left that accurate dating cannot be established and so other techniques must be used. On the other hand, the concentration of ¹⁴C falls off so steeply that the age of relatively young remains can be determined precisely to within a few decades.

"An example of determining age through Carbon Dating being wrong and faulty is from when Mt. St. Helens erupted a number of years ago. Geological formations that were formed in a matter of months were carbon dated as being tens of thousands of years old."

From the Wiki:

"The rate of creation of carbon-14 appears to be roughly constant, as cross-checks of carbon-14 dating with other dating methods show it gives consistent results. However, local eruptions of volcanoes or other events that give off large amounts of carbon dioxide can reduce local concentrations of carbon-14 and give inaccurate dates..."

OOPS, see, Mars is NOT dead. It just opened-up and grew a whole "...can of biblical-vs-scientific worms..." right before our eyes!

[sacrastic humor intended].