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.