18 Dec 14
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouse
http://phys.org/news/2014-12-curiosity-rover-ancient-chemistry-mars.html
Things are getting interesting on Mars!
...not to mention water!
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/curiosity-rover-drills-into-mars-rock-finds-water/ar-BBgUH9P?ocid=ansSpace11
18 Dec 14
Originally posted by blunderdogDon't bring religion into Science Forum. It doesn't belong here. If you want to discuss religion, go to the Spiritual Forum, they love to discuss religion there, I've been told.
Bible-thumpers everywhere are clamoring to find verses in the bible that can be interpreted to claim god created life elsewhere besides Earth, just in case.
I can hear them now:
"It doesn't say god DIDN'T create life on Mars"
18 Dec 14
Originally posted by FabianFnasAs it stands right now, there is no smoking gun for life on Mars in spite of the recent methane find since methane can also be produced by geological processes as well as life.
Don't bring religion into Science Forum. It doesn't belong here. If you want to discuss religion, go to the Spiritual Forum, they love to discuss religion there, I've been told.
I wonder if they can do an isotope analysis on the C part of the CH4 and come to any conclusions there. You know how the C13 V C14 argument goes on Earth, wonder if there would be that kind of thing on Mars, C13 from inorganic processes, C14 from organic ones. I don't know enough to say, just asking the question. THAT might be a smoking gun if there was this difference.
18 Dec 14
Originally posted by sonhouseThere are observations of ancient water on Mars. That doesn't mean presence of life. Even if there are amino acids on Mars it doesn't conclude that there has been life there.
As it stands right now, there is no smoking gun for life on Mars in spite of the recent methane find since methane can also be produced by geological processes as well as life.
I wonder if they can do an isotope analysis on the C part of the CH4 and come to any conclusions there. You know how the C13 V C14 argument goes on Earth, wonder if there would b ...[text shortened]... ough to say, just asking the question. THAT might be a smoking gun if there was this difference.
So what would we like to find on Mars that can tell us with higher probability that there has once been life on Mars?
18 Dec 14
6 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnas1, what appears to be fossilized lifeforms (probability of microbes) which are such that it is very difficult to explain how that appearance on the rock could have formed without life.
So what would we like to find on Mars that can tell us with higher probability that there has once been life on Mars?
2, something like sea shells or snail shells or skeletons or bones or or hair or claws or coral remains etc
3, fossilized foot prints or tracks of some animal
4 tunnels or chambers carved out by animals
5, claw or teeth scratch marks on rocks
6, coal or crude oil.
7, cave paintings or painting or arty carvings on rock (but that would of course indicate intelligent life which is extremely unlikely )
most of the above would clearly indicate multicellular life. If life on Mars stayed microbial then, without fossils of those microbes, it might be impossible to prove they ever existed. But I am guessing that if Mars microbes existed then there are bound to be fossils of them somewhere on Mars just like in the grand canyon on earth.
Anyone else would like to add to that list?
18 Dec 14
Originally posted by Shallow BlueExactly.
Particularly if you patently don't understand it. Or science.
Do you understand religion, or want to understand religion - go to Spiritual Forum.
Do you understand science, or want to understand science - be here at Science Forum.
Just don't go religious in Science Forum.
20 Dec 14
Originally posted by humyI would like to see a nice big thigh bone sticking out of a low hanging cliff🙂
1, what appears to be fossilized lifeforms (probability of microbes) which are such that it is very difficult to explain how that appearance on the rock could have formed without life.
2, something like sea shells or snail shells or skeletons or bones or or hair or claws or coral remains etc
3, fossilized foot prints or tracks of some animal
4 tunnels ...[text shortened]... e on Mars just like in the grand canyon on earth.
Anyone else would like to add to that list?
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
21 Dec 14
Originally posted by FabianFnasWhat about science that seems to touch on the religious, or religion that seems to touch on science? Where do we have those talks? Is there a science-religion forum? For instance, where do we have talks about neuroscience that seems to refute the philosophical concept of free will? I think you've been so worn down by creatards that you're reflexively attacking any comment that even hints at a religious problem. This is not a good thing, and frankly, I find it annoying when you feel the need to play forum police captain. Aren't there friggin moderators in this place?
Exactly.
Do you understand religion, or want to understand religion - go to Spiritual Forum.
Do you understand science, or want to understand science - be here at Science Forum.
Just don't go religious in Science Forum.
21 Dec 14
Originally posted by C HessOf course, there are many atheists that believe there exists free will just as there are many theists that don't.
What about science that seems to touch on the religious, or religion that seems to touch on science? Where do we have those talks? Is there a science-religion forum? For instance, where do we have talks about neuroscience that seems to refute the philosophical concept of free will? I think you've been so worn down by creatards that you're reflexively attackin ...[text shortened]... n you feel the need to play forum police captain. Aren't there friggin moderators in this place?
We can scientifically and therefore rationally talk about the existence or absence of free will providing you unambiguously define exactly what you mean by “free will” first ( else you would be just talking gibberish as far as real science is concerned ) without considering the conflict or consistency any theorem of that would have with some religious beliefs just like we can scientifically talk about the age of the Earth without considering the conflict or consistency any theorem of that would have with some religious beliefs. Not that there currently exists any scientific theorem that is consistent with the Earth being the Creationists “young Earth” i.e. just a few thousand years old. But even if hypothetically there was such a valid scientific theorem, there would be nothing stopping one talking of and considering it from the purely rational scientific perspective i.e. ignoring any relation it may have to some religious belief.