Posted on 07/23/2004 9:20:42 PM PDT by Simmy2.5
Ammonia may have been found in Mars' atmosphere which some scientists say could indicate life on the Red Planet. Researchers say its spectral signature has been tentatively detected by sensors on board the European Space Agency's orbiting Mars Express craft.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
Well you know, bottom line, if you want to find intelligent life on Mars, put men up there! We put 12 men on the moon over a quarter of a century ago. Were would we be, in your opinion, if we had kept up that rate of exploration?
Well, I am not sure on this one. There were several directions we could have taken. One was the logical conclusion to the X-15 being an SSTO (Single Stage to Orbit) vehicle, or possibly a more defined presence in Earth's orbit. Would we have a greater presence on the Moon if we had continued? I am not sure.
Apollo was "pushed" to its very limits as a transport vehicle. I wish 18 and 19 flew, however, for a long term “residence” a different (heavy lifting) spacecraft would have been required. A Mission to Mars is such a huge endeavor compared to the Moon that I believe it would still be in the wings even if the space program had not been cut back. Earth orbit and lunar resources should be the priority for the moment.
I know what it takes for the alleged discovery of amonia traces on Mars to translate into the 'scientific theory' that it means life on the angry red planet. About three tons of bullsh-t, 45 square miles of arrogance, 17 large government grants, and an infinitely gullible public.
You are making this painfully obvious.
I know what it takes for the alleged discovery of amonia traces on Mars to translate into the 'scientific theory' that it means life on the angry red planet. About three tons of bullsh-t, 45 square miles of arrogance, 17 large government grants, and an infinitely gullible public.
I have only one word for this rant..."Clueless".
First these clowns ask me for another explanation of the alleged traces of amonia. I give them the answer, (volcanic activity, lightening strikes, etc), and they can't rebut it. So they resort to embittered, nebulous attacks. What else can one expect from folks who want to spend billions of tax dollars looking for little green men in Windex factories?
Well please, let me try.
First off let me commend you on your amazingly informative 'answer'. Now lets go through these 'answers' one by one shall we.
"1). Yawn! The (amonia = Martian life) story claims that a NASA scientist said: ”there are no known ways for ammonia to be present in the Martian atmosphere that do not involve life.” However, the piece does not even give the name of this alleged 'NASA scientist'."
So do you propose that any scientific evidence released without the scientist name is suddenly bogus and unsubstantiated? Do you also propose that by presenting a scientific argument WITH the scientists name makes the argument concusive and factual? If you do then you are sadly misled.
"(2). An article written by Stephen Strauss of the 'Globe and Mail Update' says that reporters inundated the ESA for more information on the amonia 'discovery', and were referred to Guido De Marchi, an astronomer who also works as a Holland-based press officer for ESA. His response was: "It is not true; it is a hoax,"
A press officer decides that it was a Hoax. "Sorry guys, all the millions of dollars you spent to send the latest scientific instruments to Mars was a waste, we didnt check the instruments before hand, they were actually totally useless... we just thought it would be funny."
Good argument. Stephan Strauss is a man who thinks life cant be proven to exist until you have a living organism in your hand. A scientist who thinks all life deteticting scientific instruments are useless. Suprising dont you think that he might direct people to someone who suggests this latest discovery is a hoax?
"(3). Some scientists say that amonia can be caused by electrical discharges such as lightening."
Some scientists do. I agree. But sadly you didnt include their names and as a consequence this argment becomes invalid.
"(4). Still other scientists say amonia could be caused by undetected volcanic activity on Mars."
No one is saying that it isnt. The suggestion is that volcanic activity may not be the MAIN source of ammonia.
"(5). Still others claim it means there must be life on Mars."
This suggestion isnt based on some factless pursuit of the 'holy grail' in planetary exploration. Science works on theory and observation. On earth almost all ammonia comes from natural biological activity, yes lightning does have an impact and so does volcanic activity but the amounts they contribute are relatively insignificant. So scientists find ammonia, they think "well here on earth ammonia comes from microbes... perhaps then, maybe on mars...."
Wait, what a ludicrous suggestion, clearly we should look at the more improbable causes.
What makes these scientists any less believable than the ones who suggested lightning and volcanic activity? Where is the evidence that it IS lightning or volcanic activity? Why are non-living explanations more acceptable? People seem to think that these options are more "believable" despite the fact that there is LESS evidence to support them than the one of microbial life.
"Number 5 is what troubles me about these 'scientists'. Even with weak, unsubstantiated or refuted evidence, they still try to put forth their theories as facts, as though they were written in blood or etched in stone somewhere. But when you mention GOD to many of these people they smirk and say HE can't be seen or proven to exist, hence life began in some pool of slime or through some incredulous "big bang" theory. They have faith in themselves and their theories and try to advance them with a transcendent authority. It's all vanity."
Lets get this straight. No one is claiming that it is a "FACT" that ammonia on mars means life on mars... except maybe you. The latest scientific evidence presents this as a probable explanation for the observations of the instruments on the ESA orbiter. Which i might add not only found ammonia but traces of other chemical compounds such as methane and formaldehyde. Both of which add to the evidence that there are microbes on Mars. No one has claimed it as fact.
Why is it that a discussion about science always has to include GOD. Im not going to argue about GOD vs Science because anyone who claims to KNOW the answer is lying to themselves.
Im open to the possibility of a GOD, why arent you open to the possibility of life on another planet?
Let's first understand one thing; NOBODY can prove that life exists on Mars, even considering the alleged discovery of amonia in the Mars atmosphere. This is merely circumstantial evidence, not hard proof. No serious scientist will say that they KNOW life exists on Mars.
To try to strengthen their claim that life exists on Mars by quoting an unnamed NASA scientist only serves to cast more doubt on their hypothesis. The real problem with this whole story is that it was presented to the reader with an arrogant, authoritative slant, and not as merely somebody's personal theory. It's the same thing with the THEORY of evolution. They teach it in public schools not as somebody's personal theory, but as scientific fact. It's all arrogance and vanity. And once again, publishing the alleged quotes from a unnamed 'scientist' in an attempt to stregthen their position is very unconvincing.
Lets go back and look at the article that started this whole discussion.
Please show me where the scientists say that they KNOW life exists on Mars.
"some scientists say COULD indicate life on the Red Planet"
Where i come from "could" means that its a possibility not definitive. I have not heard or read of any scientist anywhere claiming they know life exists on Mars and if you are aware of an article that says otherwise, please let me know where to find it.
"Let's first understand one thing; NOBODY can prove that life exists on Mars"
Sorry this is one thing I don't understand. Nobody can prove that life exists? Nobody? Come on man. In 50 years time we will have technology far greater than anything we have now, one day we will set foot on Mars and the person who sets foot there will prove once and for all whether or not life exists.
"To try to strengthen their claim that life exists on Mars by quoting an unnamed NASA scientist only serves to cast more doubt on their hypothesis."
Lets get another thing straight. The scientists DIDNT WRITE THIS ARTICLE. A scientific journalist, repeat journalist wrote it. He used the quote to make his article sound better and more interesting to the reader. Its got nothing to do with scientists trying to force their ideas onto you with a 'transcendent authority'.
And this whole crap about the theory of evolution being taught as fact. I hate bringing religion into this but alot of schools teach you that the existence of GOD is a fact as well. Oh but you have the Bible.. sorry... my mistake.
The fact that evolution is taught as the THEORY of evolution suggests to me that they aren't teaching it as fact at all. If they were it would be called the LAW of evolution.
And did you even read my last post? You picked out the most trivial bit of it? Where is your rebuttle to the rest of it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.