What is Digg?23 Comments
- ShrimpCrackers, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14"Geek crap"? You're on the very wrong website.
- Herolint, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10@raid517
The tourette's acting up again? That's too bad. - Petrarch1603, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10I like how the scientists don't abandon the idea of life on Mars. "but it gives us a window into that formation process. There is a formation mechanism for them that doesn't rely on biology."
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9You know, retard, science has to start somewhere...
- Herolint, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I don't think he/she is complaining about their "starting somewhere". What is amazing is when they find something that nullifies something they previously believed and they don't readily reshape their ideas, but sometimes go so far as to ignore contradicting evidence in order to hold on to old beliefs.
I find that interesting as well. - raid517, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Although I'm all for space exploration, I have to say I don't entirely understand the facination with Mars. Whenever I see pictures of it, it reminds me of the town I was brought up in.
I wouldn't want to go back there. There wasn't any real life there either.... - ShrimpCrackers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm a bit dissapointed by this news. I had so much hopes that what they found was indeed indications of life on Mars. Now there is distinct possibility that my hopes will be dashed.
- dacheetah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4How did this end up religious? Petrarch1603's comment was non-thiestic, and the article was non-thiestic.
They are simply saying that the little blobs in the rocks that they thought could only be made by living things, could have been made by volcanoes, and that just because they probably were made by volcanoes doesn't mean that there isn't life on mars, just that there is even less evidence. - kalisphoenix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"what i find funny is they all shun religon but they keep trying to prove it wrong and most of the stuff they try crashes like the market that caused the great deppresion"
No one needs to prove religion wrong, numbnuts, anyone with a modicum of critical thought can read about Jesus smiting a fig tree and say, "wow -- you people are astoundingly full of *****." - kalisphoenix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Bravo, Obsidian743. That seemed almost lifelike.
- sirius83, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Well, Mars is a prime candidate for having once held life. It is almost fact now (note I say almost, before people start jumping down my back!) that liquid water once flowed on the Martian surface. There are surface features such as canyons that simply scream water erosion, and there is enough water ice frozen at the poles to practically flood the planet. With this in mind, it does appear that there was once a day that Mars was warmer and wetter with a thicker atmosphere...quite favorable for life.
So...why abandon the idea when they can continue investigating the possibility? Just having solid proof that we aren't alone would be a big thing. Why not be facinated with such a thing? :) - Obsidian743, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3What timbudtwo is outlining is the "philosophy" of science. Science relies on axiomatic assumptions as any other philosophy. What he may have brought into this discussion is the often hypocritical nature of said philosophy. Theories are supposed to be modified by empirical data but often times the theories are constructed in a way that almost any datum could fit within the theory. In a nutshell the assumptions are never changed but the inferences are and the result supposedly constitutes a new, more falsafiable theory when in reality the current theory has simply shifted goal posts.
This particular case outset to determine what theory could explain the existence of the mineral spheres. When scientists are focused on the idea of a biological source it's hard to abandon a potential theory even when conflicting data is found, in this case a non-biological source. So onward they go with two theories with the biological one more than likely continuing to drive their curiosity (though I don't blame them!). - raid517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I will accept that there is a non biological inference in this case - since nothing 'biolocal' has been found.
Other than that, what ever this non biological evidence is for life (specifically here on earth) I would sure as hell like to see it.
Unfortunately you won't be able to show any, because it plumb just doesn't exist. - rodrigo74, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Actually, after the great work done the team behind the rovers Spirit and Opportunity, it's now definitively proved that Mars had once lots of water.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3524275.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4094437.stm
It's just a question of time (papers to be peer-reviewed, published etc) untill this is officially accepted by the scientific community, but the evidence collected is unequivocal.
By the way, I strongly recommend the book "Roving Mars", written by the principal scientist behind this mission, Steve Squyres..great read!! - raid517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The tourette's acting up again? That's too bad."
And you my friend can sit and spin for all I care. - hudef, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"they discovered tiny mineral spheres that, some argued, were produced by living organisms. Now, researchers working in the high Arctic have found similar mineral features, produced not by microbes, but by a volcano."
These two are not mutually exclusive. There might be microbes that live in volcanic magma. We have found life in all kinds of circumstances here on earth (steaming hot geysers, within solid granite, within antarctic ice etc.). - Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2what i find funny is they all shun religon but they keep trying to prove it wrong and most of the stuff they try crashes like the market that caused the great deppresion
- thenativeraver, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@Herolint
heh heh
I like comments like that, they require thought and a type of zen. (The sarcastic type) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4the "planet Mars" didn't get mention in the Bible...so these "scientists" are making ***** up!
4.5 billion years???? LOLZ why not make up 7 billion? or 1000 billion?? you crazy "scientists" need to stop making stuff up. go read the Bible, all the Facts you are in there.
President Bush needs to outlaw these scientists, it's what Jesus would have done.
God Bless America, and no one else. - Obsidian743, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1And that's the source of your disappointment: your predisposition for discovering extraterrestial life and that any potential evidence is first thought to imply life rather than accepting the empirical history that there is always a non-biological inference.
- timbudtwo, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7Do scientists find something new in the universe and say something like "hmm... this will shed light on the creation of the universe" or change universe to earth, mars, red planet, pluto, vaseline, etc...? It seems like whenever they find something new it is the answer they have been looking for and they tag something important to it to get government (read: your taxes) funding for it, then find out it was a pointless venture.
- raid517, on 10/12/2007, -18/+3Oh ***** hell... can't you keep your dumb God and religion out of science topics for once?
- roostermint, on 10/12/2007, -24/+1wow this space stuff is more boring than watching campbell scott act. Show me some damn aliens or keep all this geek crap to yourselfs.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is