Posted on 10/23/2002 4:07:44 PM PDT by blam
We search the heavens for patterns in radio waves assuming there will be intelligence behind those patterns. We look in rocks for patterns that remind us of bacteria or something similar to life on earth. But we look at DNA which is certainly a pattern with a massive amount of data and do not assume an intelligence behind it. We claim that evolved life is a product of random chance yet search rocks for similarities.
Scientific schizophrenia lives. A little logic, if applied, would go a long way.
There is nothing but spectoral data and that is just way too vague to base such a conclusion.
Yes, but assume that the galaxy is teeming with bacteria, inside every planet made of rock, anyway. It seems to be a safe assumption. Higher forms of life such as 'ahem' ourselves might be unique to earth. Assume that, and the consequences will work out with little turbulence.
No. - but send more probes. They're delicious.
One 'rock from outer space worshipping' cult is plenty enough.
Though I'm convinced that the origin of life defies a naturalistic explanation, I am expecting that life, or the remains of life, will eventually be discovered on Mars. My reason has nothing to do with spontaneous generation. It has everything to do with Mars' proximity to Earth.Four years ago, on ABC's "Nightline" with Ted Koppel, two astronomers and a science journalist declared that the discovery of life on Mars would provide virtual proof that life does indeed originate and evolve, and quite easily, by natural processes. Here is their line of reasoning: So far, we know of life's existence on only one planet orbiting one star out of ten-billion-trillion stars in the cosmos. If life is found on Mars, we would know it exists on two planets, but not just any two planets, two planets orbiting the same star. Instead of just one life site out of ten-billion-trillion candidates, we would have two life sites out of nine (the nine planets of our solar system). Such a finding would suggest that life is abundant throughout our universe, abundant by spontaneous generation.
By their faulty reasoning and failure to acknowledge relevant data, these influential men are setting their audience up for a deception. The remains, at least, of many micro-organisms are likely to be found on Mars for no other reason than that Mars is only thirty-five million miles away from Earth. In other words, these zealous evolutionists, bent on searching for life on Mars, seem to ignore important facts about the transportability and survivability of Earth life forms.
Perhaps such could be added to an existing planned mission.
Thanks for that image earthling. Not those probes.
I say again - eeeeyyyuuuu.
Okay, let's say I grant you, for the sake of argument, that a meteor strike on Mars could cause some rocks to achieve escape velocity. Then there's two more issues:
Actually, only the very outside of a meteorite is heated -- small parts melt and get blown away (called ablation), but the interior stays quite cool. The same principle worked with the Apollo spacecraft, returning from the Moon.
Such rocks don't come with return addresses. Isn't it really a WAG that it came from Mars originally?
It's a complicated story, but basically, Mars meteorites have chemistry and ages consistent with coming from Mars, but not the asteroids. What really nailed it down was the discovery in these rocks of minute bits of argon gas whose isotopic composition identically matches the atmosphere of Mars, as determined by the Viking 1 spacecraft 25 years ago.
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.