What is Digg?31 Comments
- Upon66, on 07/08/2008, -0/+15Great pictures, but where's the high res images?
- bixby1, on 07/08/2008, -0/+7Amazing. The color really grabs you. Fantastic find.
- zplot, on 07/08/2008, -0/+7Amazing. Thanks for posting these. I hope that we can get some more photos of these locations from the ground. I loved the famous Matrian sunset picture, and can only imagine what pics we can get from future rovers when landing them at the locations shown here.
- philadelphia, on 07/08/2008, -0/+5Wow. Very cool images. Is it me, or did the first picture of the Northern Dunes look like beached whales?
- Totz83, on 07/08/2008, -2/+7I see no evidence of Rick Astley, lets go there
- DeadSkinMask, on 07/08/2008, -0/+5Brilliant pictures.
- MrFurious2k, on 07/08/2008, -0/+4The landscape is impressive, but the pics were too low resolution.
- poidh, on 07/08/2008, -0/+3So how long before Richard Branson offers dune buggy holidays there?
- Frostek, on 07/08/2008, -0/+3For some reason I was thinking these would make great maps for Total Annihilation (or your own favourite RTS). Just add some metal patches and you're done. I've got a few of these already in higher resolution, but is there a place where we can get the original pics from?
- kevman459, on 07/08/2008, -0/+32nd pic: "The color variations in the image (sand is represented in blue) might indicate further erosion."
Is it really blue? If so it looks amazing. The word "represented" leads me to believe it's a false color image though. - abuelos84, on 07/08/2008, -0/+3Well, it's hard to find bacteria from Sattelite pics...
- inactive, on 07/08/2008, -1/+4must have been a big bloke in the sky then
- AlienHairball, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2@yuanzhouluyuanzhoulu
er... what's your problem? The guy above you just said he hopes we can get more pics of these locations from the ground (via rovers). What in that made you bring out the *****? ;) - bcrich999, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2Get your ass to Mahs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjniZcjC40o - DouglasScott, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2This is from Mars: Are you sure it's not biological?
http://barsoom.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/jpegma ...
anyways, Mars has always been an extreme environment. No life there does not disprove evolution. - DouglasScott, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2Does this look like it's from google earth?
http://barsoom.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/jpegma ... - baaj, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2Yep, I was also hoping for wallpaper sized images to replace my sunset pic.
Very cool but I wonder how much color/image enhancement went into them before they were released. - Echota, on 01/05/2009, -0/+2WOW! Thank's! Great pics!
- justice7, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2Very cool, we've got surface shots of a few places now
Surface of Venus
http://images.google.ca/images?um=1&hl=en&q=Venus+ ...
Surface of Titan (one of Jupiter's Moons)
http://images.google.ca/images?um=1&hl=en&q=Titan+ ...
Surface of Mars
http://images.google.ca/images?hl=en&q=Mars%20Surf ...
Surface of the Moon
http://images.google.ca/images?um=1&hl=en&q=Moon+S ...
I think that's all we have so far. Anyone know of any other surface shots we've obtained from the solar system?
Also, pay attention to the images, its just a google image search. Some of them aren't real, but it is obvious which are and are not. - chemam, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2this is one of my fav pictures of mars
http://hirise-pds.lpl.arizona.edu/PDS/EXTRAS/RDR/P ... - elbekko, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1And once again, doesn't work. Damn junk.
- inactive, on 07/08/2008, -1/+1too bad we'll never see what's really out there in space.... in our lifetime
- leahbasskitten, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0at first i thought it was on pepsi.com
- fx666, on 07/09/2008, -3/+1I agree that Mars is an extreme environment. But NASA thinks otherwise, that is why they keep searching for the bacteria there, which is a waste of money. As for the theory of evolution, it contains so much contradictory and unproven propositions that it is practically dead. The quotation that I presented is just another example of how weak the evolutionary theory is.
- inactive, on 07/08/2008, -3/+1FAKE!!
/Not Fake :) - uptwolait, on 07/08/2008, -3/+1Most of those pics look like something you could find here on earth on Google Earth. I guess that could mean either Mars has similarities in composition and structure to earth (with the hope that it might support life), or these image were faked and we never really went to Mars.
Discuss. - yuanzhoulu, on 07/08/2008, -4/+1no *****, what do you expect? a bunch of mountains just showed up out of nowhere without the possibility of avalanches?
- inactive, on 07/08/2008, -11/+2WEZ FROM MARS! WII GUNNA B FIRIN TEHR LAZERZ PEWPEW
- fx666, on 07/08/2008, -13/+2The photographs are truly amazing. However, one important thing is missing -- there is no extraterrestrial bacteria on them, which is the subject of NASA's hunt. This is a serious blow to the evolutionary theory.
Every scientific theory needs an experimental verification, without a supporting experimental data it is dead (I bet, NASA does not know that!) So far the evolutionary theory has not met this criterion -- no one has observed a creation of new species. But this is not the only obstacle that the evolutionary theory faces -- it is full of unworkable assumptions. For example, it is impossible for an asexual organism, such as the original cell, to give rise to species with both male and female members. This is what Friedman has to say about this obvious contradiction:
"Two Sexes
Another obstacle that the evolutionary theory faces is the existence of two sexes.
The evolutionary theory stumbles and falls when its proponents fail to explain the fact that there are two sexes in the animal world. All evolutionists agree that the original cell was asexual—it didn’t have reproductive organs. As the evolutionists contend, the reproductive organs appeared later when the organisms became more complex.
There are three possible ways that this could have happened: 1) Some organisms could have developed the penis first, then, say, one million years later the vagina evolved. But the penis alone is a useless characteristic and, if the evolutionary theory is correctly interpreted, its uselessness should have made it disappear quite soon. 2) The vagina
could have appeared first. (The same logic as in the previous case applies.) 3) The vagina and penis could have appeared simultaneously
How great is the chance of that? Besides, since they evolved separately, there is no reason why they should be compatible. For example, it could have been a huge penis and a miniature vagina. More importantly,
there is no reason why they should be genetically compatible (genetic compatibility is required to produce offspring).
An asexual organism does not need a partner to reproduce itself; it can branch itself into similar organisms at any time. When two sexes are involved, not everyone gets a shot at it. Some members of a species have to wait until the next mating season. This means that asexual species have a better chance of reproduction and subsequent survival of the species, so asexuality is not a characteristic to be lost. Once again, the evolutionary theory leads to a wrong conclusion"
Walter Friedman, Critique of the Theory of Evolution. - inactive, on 07/08/2008, -12/+0SHUT THE ***** UP!
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
