Life may have originated on Mars

"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

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

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!

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I'm not the one desperate for your dogma to be true.

LOL

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

"The chances of anything coming from Mars,
Are a million to one,
But still, they come"

Christian/Science is really an oxymoron; like RJHinds/the Instructor

Originally posted by woodypusher
Christian/Science is really an oxymoron; like RJHinds/the Instructor

well said.