1. Standard memberwoodypusher
    misanthrope
    seclusion
    Joined
    22 Jan '13
    Moves
    1834
    29 Aug '13 14:19
    "In the beginning, God created the heavens and Mars."

    From the Christian Science Monitor:
    http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2013/0829/Life-on-Earth-began-on-Mars-suggests-research
  2. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12734
    29 Aug '13 16:18
    Originally posted by woodypusher
    "In the beginning, God created the heavens and Mars."

    From the Christian Science Monitor:
    http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2013/0829/Life-on-Earth-began-on-Mars-suggests-research
    Desperation.

    The Instructor
  3. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    29 Aug '13 17:244 edits
    Originally posted by woodypusher
    "In the beginning, God created the heavens and Mars."

    From the Christian Science Monitor:
    http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2013/0829/Life-on-Earth-began-on-Mars-suggests-research
    I think this is a VERY badly written piece:

    Its title is “Life on Earth began on Mars, suggests research” but if your then read the actual content of this piece, there appears to be no valid justification for this assertion for this 'research', if you can actually call it that, fails to validly “suggest” anything of the sort!
    It says “New evidence supports the idea that life on Earth originated on Mars and was ferried here aboard an asteroid.” but then completely fails to show any valid “new evidence” for this so, obviously, no such new evidence exists else, if there was, we would have already heard about it!
    Then it says “Evidence is building that Earth life originated on Mars and was brought to this planet aboard a meteorite, “ but then gives no valid premise for us to rationally believe that “Evidence is building” to show this thus, obviously, there is no such “Evidence” that “is building” to show this else, again, if there was, we would have already heard about it!

    The only apparent 'evidence' (if you can call it that! ) it proposes is mere two suggestions; Firstly that “"It’s only when molybdenum becomes highly oxidized that it is able to influence how early life formed," but then completely fails to explain any rational reason WHY we should believe any such “ influence” would make life MORE likely to form rather than LESS likely! -so we can dismiss that suggestion as completely irrelevant. Then it explains why oxidized molybdenum could only have come from space to earth and then says; “That's where oxidized molybdenum comes in. Inserting it or boron, another element, into the mix would help organics make the leap to life, “ which is the second of the two suggestions it makes for 'evidence' but then completely fails to explain any rational reason WHY we should believe it WOULD “ help “ make “organics make the leap to life“! -so we can also dismiss that suggestion as completely irrelevant.

    It then makes the suggestion that life was carried here with; “Some microbes are incredibly hardy, after all, and may be able to survive an interplanetary journey after being blasted off their home world by an asteroid impact. “. But gives NO evidence that this is what happened nor any reason for us to believe that this may be likely. In fact, the actually ADMITS that “No indigenous Red Planet organisms have ever been discovered“!
    But, worse, this appears to totally logically contradict their earlier statements that life started here on EARTH via help with oxidized molybdenum! -you cannot have it both ways! -you cannot have BOTH life starting on Earth because oxidized molybdenum being brought to Earth from Mars AND life being on Earth BECAUSE of it being seeded from Mars by being carried here on a meteor!
    So this piece gives two completely logically contradictory conclusions of how life arose!

    -Altogether, a VERY badly written piece indeed!
    I cannot help wonder if the reason why it is so bad is something to do with it coming from this "Christian Science Monitor" ? They claim not to be a religious paper but I cannot help but not trust that!
  4. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12734
    29 Aug '13 21:39
    Originally posted by humy
    I think this is a VERY badly written piece:

    Its title is “Life on Earth began on Mars, [b]suggests
    research” but if your then read the actual content of this piece, there appears to be no valid justification for this assertion for this 'research', if you can actually call it that, fails to validly “suggest” anything of the sort!
    It says “New evid ...[text shortened]... ? They claim not to be a religious paper but I cannot help but not trust that![/b]
    Like I said, it is merely a desperate attempt to avoid the truth of the real source of the design of life on Earth.

    Es una tentativa desesperada de evitar la verdad de la verdadera fuente del diseño de la vida en la Tierra.

    El Instructor
  5. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    30 Aug '13 00:07
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Like I said, it is merely a desperate attempt to avoid the truth of the real source of the design of life on Earth.

    Es una tentativa desesperada de evitar la verdad de la verdadera fuente del diseño de la vida en la Tierra.

    El Instructor
    I just hope for you a long life. Long enough for science to prove life in fact started on Mars. I would love for you to go into deep denial.
  6. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12734
    30 Aug '13 02:39
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I just hope for you a long life. Long enough for science to prove life in fact started on Mars. I would love for you to go into deep denial.
    I understand, misery loves company.

    Entiendo, la miseria ama la compañía.

    El Instructor
  7. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    30 Aug '13 09:00
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I understand, misery loves company.

    Entiendo, la miseria ama la compañía.

    El Instructor
    I'm not the one desperate for your dogma to be true.
  8. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    30 Aug '13 09:396 edits
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Like I said, it is merely a desperate attempt to avoid the truth of the real source of the design of life on Earth.

    Es una tentativa desesperada de evitar la verdad de la verdadera fuente del diseño de la vida en la Tierra.

    El Instructor
    This piece was from the "Christian Science Monitor".
    If it is a "desperate attempt" at anything, it would be a desperate and failed attempt by the religious nutters like yourself to recognize real science when they see it because you and they wouldn't know what real science is if it hit you in your face.

    No surprises then that it was so badly written and full of crap.
    It even logically contradicted itself! -typical religious nutters 'logic' that is full of crap, just as we should expect.
  9. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    30 Aug '13 09:42
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I'm not the one desperate for your dogma to be true.
    LOL
  10. Standard memberwoodypusher
    misanthrope
    seclusion
    Joined
    22 Jan '13
    Moves
    1834
    02 Sep '13 23:311 edit
    Originally posted by humy
    I think this is a VERY badly written piece:

    Its title is “Life on Earth began on Mars, [b]suggests
    research” but if your then read the actual content of this piece, there appears to be no valid justification for this assertion for this 'research', if you can actually call it that, fails to validly “suggest” anything of the sort!
    It says “New evid ? They claim not to be a religious paper but I cannot help but not trust that![/b]
    Perhaps one of these will meet your personal standard for a well-written piece:

    http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/aug/29/life-earth-originated-mars

    http://www.mining.com/life-began-on-mars-not-earth-steven-benner-47412/

    http://www.pentagonpost.com/life-began-mars-earth-scientists/83411302

    http://natmonitor.com/2013/09/02/we-may-all-be-martians-new-research-suggests-life-started-on-mars/

    http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/08/29/life-began-on-mars

    http://theconversation.com/life-on-mars-or-life-from-mars-its-how-it-formed-that-matters-17666

    http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/21270

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/12/us/nasa-mars-rock

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/28/life-start-on-mars-origin-martians-new-evidence_n_3830652.html

    http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/165184-life-on-earth-originally-came-from-mars-new-study-suggests

    I intentionally used the one from the Christian Science Monitor in anticipation of being entertained by more RJ ignorance.

    I read about this 'suggestion' more than a decade ago:

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2001-02-27/news/0102270204_1_martian-meteorite-kathie-thomas-keprta-allen-hills
  11. Standard memberptobler
    Patzer
    Canberra
    Joined
    16 Oct '06
    Moves
    10095
    02 Sep '13 23:35
    "The chances of anything coming from Mars,
    Are a million to one,
    But still, they come"
  12. Standard memberwoodypusher
    misanthrope
    seclusion
    Joined
    22 Jan '13
    Moves
    1834
    03 Sep '13 02:301 edit
    Christian/Science is really an oxymoron; like RJHinds/the Instructor
  13. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    03 Sep '13 07:51
    Originally posted by woodypusher
    Christian/Science is really an oxymoron; like RJHinds/the Instructor
    well said.
Back to Top