backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 148 comment(s) - last by MrPoletski.. on May 23 at 6:06 AM

New observations show that if life exists on Mars, it's probably going to be much deeper underground than expected

Scientists have posited that if life exists on Mars presently, it is probably hidden out of view in aquifers beneath the planet's barren surface. Unfortunately, new data collected by NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter suggests that these aquifers, if they exist, are probably much deeper inside the small ruddy planet than researchers had hoped.

Using the orbiter's SHARAD (Shallow Radar) instrument, scientists have been able to get a very detailed picture of Mars' nothern global icecap and the planet's crust below. Though the data has proven very useful in fleshing out the life cycle of the giant ice cap, it also shows that the martian lithosphere, or the outer crust, is very stiff.

Earth's lithosphere, in contrast, is somewhat soft. A large buildup of ice on Earth in a situation similar to Mars' would actually cause the crust to sag beneath its weight. On Mars, this is not happening. Scientists believe this shows that Mars' lithosphere is quite thick and cold.

Warmed internally by pressure and/or an active core, a planet's lithosphere gradually grows colder towards the outside. Mars' lithosphere being stiff enough to not sag under the immense weight of its icecaps indicates that the any warmth generated internally does not venture far from the core, making the outer crust much colder than anticipated. This cold would prevent liquid water from forming anywhere near the surface. Instead, should it exist, it would be much deeper and most likely inaccessible by any easy means.

The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter's detailed imaging of the icecap did show evidence for a planetary climate, however. Alternating layers of dusty ice and nearly pure ice are thought to show a timetable of approximately one million year intervals. This coincides with the estimate that the cap itself is roughly four million years old. The climate changes are likely caused by variations in the planet's rotational axis and orbit.

More surface data from the northern polar region should be available very soon as NASA's Phoenix Mars Lander is slated to set down on the planet's surface in just over a week. The lander will explore the polar region and look for signs of the existence of water on the surface in the past.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

so...
By retrospooty on 5/17/2008 9:06:22 AM , Rating: 3
The major question is not "does" life exist on Mars... It is "DID" life used to exist on Mars. Billions of years ago it was much more Earthlike, had liquid water and could easily have supported microscopic life, if not higher forms.




RE: so...
By overzealot on 5/17/2008 9:36:22 AM , Rating: 1
Well, I'm sure it's a high priority to determine that life has ever existed there.
If there is evidence that life has existed on Mars, there's sure to be a lot of interest in whether some lifeforms have managed to adapt the significantly changed ecosystem. Any organism that's existed and evolved for that long would be a biologists dream.
Although, if they're deep it will take many years to discover the truth.


RE: so...
By ImSpartacus on 5/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: so...
By maven81 on 5/17/2008 9:57:54 AM , Rating: 3
Ah the same tired old argument. So killing the apollo program helped us solve problems on earth did it? And spending trillions of dollars trying to eliminate poverty worked so well...
Or could it be that the majority of the problems we face need political not economic solutions?

Why can't we talk about space exploration without this cropping up every time?
Consider that if life is found in the solar system (and I think there's a good possibility), it will give religious leaders something to think about... Maybe that's what you're really scared of. For instance if life is found on Europa, or Enceladus someone will have a lot of explaining to do.


RE: so...
By sld on 5/17/2008 11:10:33 AM , Rating: 2
Religious leaders? I thought the Catholic Church has dogmatically swallowed the life-on-multiple-worlds worldview hook, line and sinker already?

I wonder how many negative results astroscientists are going to come across before they give up. Maybe they don't want to give up because they are desperate in finding a basis for their own beliefs, whatever these may be..


RE: so...
By daftrok on 5/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: so...
By ImSpartacus on 5/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: so...
By Chaser on 5/17/2008 2:39:32 PM , Rating: 1
And where do those morals come from?


RE: so...
By ImSpartacus on 5/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: so...
By daftrok on 5/17/2008 7:07:27 PM , Rating: 4
Mainly morals are taught from parents and of course the stories that the religious books teach, which encompass the universal idea of stealing (Kite Runner stated this point very intelligently):
Don't steal material things (thievery)
Don't steal lives (killing)
Don't steal spouses (adultery)
Don't steal virginity (raping)
Don't steal the truth (lying, cheating)
Don't steal your family's honor (disrespecting family)

These are basic morality taught by the holy books which are then fine tuned in your mind, what with the help of parents or religious figures.

But being punished just for being homosexual or not believing in God or supposedly God-like figures or believing in evolution is blatant human opinion that was spilled onto the holy books when they were created and exaggerated with interpretation (or rather misinterpretation) of extreme conservative religious figures. And that spiraled out of control into religion being a business venture rather than a religious journey and that makes me make a frowny face...:(


RE: so...
By Ringold on 5/17/2008 7:28:37 PM , Rating: 5
Stripping away religion entirely, many of the things religion suggests people do (kindness, no stealing, etc) make sense for any species that desires to have a higher level of existance than hunter-gathering. All of the things daftrok just listed are rather essential for maintaining peace in any sort of modern civilization, where we all live and work together in cities/communities.

Even enshrining respect for the standard two-person nuclear household makes sense, as any economist knows it's the most efficient way households can take advantage of efficiencies of scale and raise kids. (Note I said two persons, not a man and woman, that much doesn't matter)

Start breaking daftrok's rules, and people start getting angry at each other. Steal enough, rape enough, and lie enough, and people start killing each other. Not good for cities.


RE: so...
By masher2 (blog) on 5/18/2008 12:27:18 AM , Rating: 4
> "(Note I said two persons, not a man and woman, that much doesn't matter)"

Personally, I believe the male-female nuclear household, however, does have benefits above and beyond a generic "two person" composition. It seems self-evident that when both members have a biologic interest in the offspring, they are likely to be more committed to a successful outcome.


RE: so...
By Hydrofirex on 5/18/2008 7:03:15 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, not like you to spout unsupportable flub like that. If you really stopped to consider the facts I think you'd realize that what you're calling "self-evident" is a highly ignorant and one-sided position. Both men and women in any combination and are just as capable of completely disregarding children - or conversely raising them. Show me some proof if you can.

HfX


RE: so...
By Ringold on 5/18/2008 8:11:08 PM , Rating: 2
If Masher wants to fight that battle, I'll let him. However, the data I've seen myself made no distinction between "normal" and same-sex households with respect to how their children turned out. Two parent households trump, by far, single parent households in child outcomes and economic efficiency; that's the only solid thing I've seen.


RE: so...
By masher2 (blog) on 5/18/2008 8:14:06 PM , Rating: 4
> "Show me some proof if you can."

It is well known that there are elevated rates of both neglect and abuse among stepchildren. In fact, there is even a name for the condition, the "Cinderella Effect". See this research paper for details:

http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/buller/cind...

On a general basis, people care more for their own biologic offspring. A million years of evolution has programmed us thus. While examples to the contrary exist, if anything they reinforce the general rule, rather than disproving it.

It is for this reason that it seems self-evident that the typical male-female nuclear family is the most succesful at raising and caring for children...and indeed, it explains why that unit evolved socially in the first place.

> "Wow, not like you to spout unsupportable flub like that."

My "flub", as you put it, is always well supported.


RE: so...
By NullSubroutine on 5/18/2008 11:59:10 PM , Rating: 1
No its not. How many 'biological parents' leave their children or abuse them?

Stepchildren studies are not the same as same-sex couple studies.

Male-female nuclear family is not the most successful at raising and caring for children. The most successful are the parents of any number of sex that take an active participation in raising their children, teaching them values, and having good values to teach them.

quote:
Studies from 1981 to 1994, including 260 children reared by either heterosexual mothers or same-sex mothers after divorce, found no differences in intelligence, type or prevalence of psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, well-being, peer relationships, couple relationships, or parental stress.


RE: so...
By masher2 (blog) on 5/19/2008 3:03:20 AM , Rating: 4
> "Studies [of] children reared by either heterosexual mothers or same-sex mothers after divorce, found no differences..."

And other studies have shown the exact opposite, though such results predictably receive far less press attention. Here's one such study, whose results showed children of gay parents are at significantly higher risk for a number of negative outcomes:

http://www.soc.iastate.edu/soc522a/PDF%20readings/...

In any case, the study you cite is fatally flawed from the start, as it compares only lesbian couples who raised children up to their teenage years. Right away that eliminates the worst category of all -- couples who refused to stay together, leaving only one adult to care for the children. That's the entire point I was making...couples for which both parents lack a biological interest, break up more often. Your study excludes that case entirely.

Even worse, the study examined lesbians only, not gays. In regards to child-rearing, males, lacking maternal instincts, are substantially more likely than females to lack emotional bonds to a stepchild for which they have no biological interest.


RE: so...
By JS on 5/19/2008 6:42:16 AM , Rating: 1
I believe that there is bound to be more commitment to your children if you actively have to pursue their creation/existence than if they happen by accident.

Adoptive parents (hetero- or homosexual) have normally made a very conscious decision and invested great amounts of time and money to have children, which means they are probable to take better care of them.

I think that fact cancels out any vested genetic interest biological parents might have in terms of taking good care of their children.


RE: so...
By encryptkeeper on 5/19/2008 9:30:47 AM , Rating: 2
It seems self-evident that when both members have a biologic interest in the offspring, they are likely to be more committed to a successful outcome.

So you believe that parents are more likely to care properly for children because they have something to gain from having them? What about parents who are unable to conceive? They obviously have no "biologic interest" in the child, yet there is a definite ability for such couples to raise the child with all the care in the world. And lots of people feel no desire to raise their own biological children. Some people choose to give a child all the love and care that they can possibly give, and some don't. It's as simple as that. And what they choose may not be exactly right all the time, and that's just something that every human does in their lives.


RE: so...
By MozeeToby on 5/19/2008 10:56:44 AM , Rating: 1
Fair enough, but what's the difference between a heterosexual couple adopting versus and homosexual couple adopting? In both cases, neither parent has a "biological interest" as you put it, yet adopted children are loved and cared for just as much as any others.


RE: so...
By masher2 (blog) on 5/19/2008 11:45:57 AM , Rating: 2
> "yet adopted children are loved and cared for just as much as any others."

There is a great deal of wiggle room in the phrase "much as". See my previous posts for the well-documented differences in treatment for stepchildren.

As for adopted children, due to the approval process required, you're dealing with a set of parents already significantly above average. Adopted children therefore tend to do well...except in cases where they were adopted due to the couple's difficulty in conceiving a natural child, and that difficulty is later overcome. In such cases, the adopted child quite often takes a 'backseat' to the biological sibling, as numerous studies attest.

As I said earlier, a million years of evolution has programmed us to care for our own offspring. That certainly doesn't mean step- or adopted children can't be as succesfully reared. But it does mean the odds are stacked, at least slightly, against them.


RE: so...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/19/08, Rating: 0
RE: so...
By nofranchise on 5/20/2008 3:32:28 AM , Rating: 2
God Reclaimer you are such an idiot.


RE: so...
By callmeroy on 5/20/2008 4:17:43 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with Masher on this one.

Its not hate driven so for everyone who's hitting the "OMG I can't believe he said that" or "homophobe" buttons just need the chill.

There's no hate in that view. I know and have known more than one person who is in same gender relationships, some of them have been friends and some of them just co-workers. Honestly, its not my cup of tea but beyond that I don't really care.

Any race, any gender-orientation you prefer, any religion -- I'll judge you by how you ultimately carry yourself and treat me. If you are ass - you are a ass, end of story, if you are cool - then you are cool. Its really that simple.

But that all said - I still believe the stronger benefits come from a male/female nuclear household.


RE: so...
By rykerabel on 5/21/2008 3:52:17 PM , Rating: 2
I will acquiesce that male/female unit may generally raise children more capably. However, I will attest that there are many same gender couples who will do much better than average male/female units. Thus, I would suggest either fully support qualified same gender parenting, or fully discount average same gender parenting. Otherwise, you are a hypocrite.


RE: so...
By 2uantuM on 5/18/2008 12:02:22 AM , Rating: 2
Good point.

Our "morals" are fabricated by our own cultures. Our culture happens to believe stealing, murder, and rape is bad. What is moral to you and your culture could be entirely immoral or normal to another.


RE: so...
By StinkyWhizzleTeeth on 5/18/2008 6:51:37 PM , Rating: 4
Are there any animals that let there food be stolen from them?

Do you just sit back and allow people to steal from you?

If yes, then does it not at least cause you anguish?

I used to think the same as you, but now I realize relative morality is actually explained perfectly by the Bible.


RE: so...
By Shining Arcanine on 5/18/2008 5:21:37 AM , Rating: 2
If they are hiding "truth" and you know about it, then tell me, what is this truth and how did you obtain it from the Vatican's allegedly secret libraries that they share with no one?

There is a clear logical flaw in your statements. You cannot possibly know something is there if people have no way of observing it. The same statement is made with angels, where it is said that people cannot know that they are there if they cannot observe them.


RE: so...
By daftrok on 5/18/2008 2:43:38 PM , Rating: 1
The "truth" I am speaking of are books and scriptures written in that time period that were covered up by the Vatican. Now I'm not saying the whole Jesus has a Son thing that The Da Vinci Code was implying, but rather accounts of things that would essentially disprove our religions.

Some of the theories that have been researched upon was Jesus' true parents; was Mary telling the truth that she was indeed a Virgin or that Joseph was the father (which isn't necessarily a bad thing because incest was a norm in that time period). Or the accounts of Jesus having a wife Mary Magdalen because as Jesus was a Jew, to be more accepted into society and have a following he would have to have had a wife so that people can relate to him.

Now I personally don't feel that this would rupture the foundations of Christianity, because as I said before a moral life is a good life, but for "devout" Christians the fact that Jesus was an incest child or that he had a wife would rupture their "faith".

This is what I meant by the "truth". Historical accounts written in time periods of the multiple religions but the Vatican keeping secret in their libraries. We all know there is a historical library in the Vatican and we all know they won't let anyone see what's inside. They may say "to preserve history" but it really means "to exploit and monetize history". If they have nothing to hide, why not create digital copies of the books and have it open to the world?


RE: so...
By StinkyWhizzleTeeth on 5/18/2008 7:32:21 PM , Rating: 2
I believe that is entirely possible that the Vatican is hiding books, because this type of behavior it has displayed in the past during the dark ages. People have been telling and writing stories similiar to The Davinci Code since forever. There are examples of this in the Old Testament (Baal), and hints of it in the New Testament (Letters from John talking about the divinity of Jesus), and we can see many similiar stories and prophecies to The Bible (Krishna).

The Vatican right now talks about reconciliation, and being nice, and spreading peace. But I'm troubled by the Vatican's political activities. The Pope controls enough swing votes in this country to influence some of our Federal government's policies. The Vatican still wants to control peoples actions by force. I have nothing against Catholics, because I'm only talking about the political structure of the Catholic church.

I read The Davinci Code and found it very fascinating. Who knew the word "Pagan" used to simply mean "Peasant"? The book sparked my interest in Religion, and led me to start reading The Bible. With the help of a theologian named Doug Batchelor (amazingfacts.tv) I was amazed to find myself wanting to attend church service.


RE: so...
By masher2 (blog) on 5/18/2008 8:21:06 PM , Rating: 3
> "I read The Davinci Code and found it very fascinating. Who knew the word "Pagan" used to simply mean "Peasant"? "

The Da Vinci code is extremely questionable in its historical accuracy. As for the etymology of the word "pagan", the above isn't quite accurate. The original meaning denoted a rural inhibitant, as Christianity originally evolved from urban centers.

"Peasant" isn't quite accurate, as its original meaning was a social class independent of wealth (some peasants were indeed wealthier than aristocrats), while its present meaning implies someone impoverished, or at least very poor.


RE: so...
By StinkyWhizzleTeeth on 5/18/2008 9:26:14 PM , Rating: 1
Very likely since the part of the book about Jesus having a child no longer makes any sense to me :-)


RE: so...
By pxavierperez on 5/19/2008 11:38:40 AM , Rating: 2
Ya, I second that. Da Vinci code is plagued by historical inaccuracies. Plus it reads more like a conspiracy theorist's fantasy novel.


RE: so...
By MrPoletski on 5/23/2008 6:06:19 AM , Rating: 2
"Ya, I second that. Da Vinci code is plagued by historical inaccuracies."

Ah, just like the Bible then.


RE: so...
By daftrok on 5/20/2008 11:53:46 AM , Rating: 2
Though its true the Da Vinci Code is littered with inaccuracies and exaggerations, we can deduce the following:
1) Mary Madelene was not a whore but one of the close followers of Jesus Christ and its obvious the Apostles were jealous because she was a woman.
2) The Church used everything in their power to discredit Madelene and overemphasize Jesus' divinity to get more followers and in turn more money.
3) The Church inherited Pagan traditions to their religious holidays to ease outsiders into Christianity (trees, decorations, presents for Christmas; rabbits and eggs for Easter, etc.)
4) The Church also discredited Pagan traditions and symbols (the pentagram) as evil and against God in order to increase their popularity.

Seeing these historical trends of the Church, it is completely probable that the Vatican libraries are hidden because it might unearth some truths that have been shielded in order to maintain their religion.


RE: so...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/19/2008 12:13:27 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If they are hiding "truth" and you know about it, then tell me, what is this truth and how did you obtain it from the Vatican's allegedly secret libraries that they share with no one?


Didn't you know that all conspiracy theorist know the truth about the things nobody knows about ?


RE: so...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 5/19/2008 1:06:36 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmmm.... and I thought it was because he saw it on the History Channel.


RE: so...
By encryptkeeper on 5/19/2008 9:16:12 AM , Rating: 2
Wow. Someone's read "The Da Vinci Code" one too many times.


RE: so...
By masher2 (blog) on 5/18/2008 12:11:34 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
I wonder how many negative results astroscientists are going to come across before they give up.
Negative results? Well there are some 100 million trillion stars in the universe, with each one possibly having multiple planets...and out of all those countless worlds, we've only explored a single one thoroughly-- and that one has life on it. So I'm not sure where you get the strange notion that "astroscientists" are being flooded with negative results.


RE: so...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/17/2008 11:51:03 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Consider that if life is found in the solar system (and I think there's a good possibility), it will give religious leaders something to think about... Maybe that's what you're really scared of. For instance if life is found on Europa, or Enceladus someone will have a lot of explaining to do.


I seriously doubt that if single celled organisms are found on Mars that it means there is no god. I'm not saying there is, but you make it seem like the two are mutually exclusive and it would be some huge revelation or something that would create a scism in peoples beliefs.

I don't agree with what that poster said word for word. But the whole " where there was water there was life " assumption by NASA seems a little far fetched to me. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that it is the case.

And to those saying that eventually we'll have to colonize other worlds and etc etc, you might have a point. But what does that have to do with discovering amoeba or similar life on other planets ? I think the simple fact is we're probably about 100+ years from having the technology to viably colonize other planets or moons. The distances are truly staggering for one thing.


RE: so...
By Ringold on 5/17/2008 7:57:11 PM , Rating: 2
100+ years? I think that depends on what you call a real colony.

If we hadn't dropped Apollo, we'd possibly already have it, but even if Obama eliminates manned space flight entirely (he plans thus far only to kill the Moon/Mars mission, but to keep the Orion & Ares I as a taxi for the ISS), private enterprise is already rapidly getting ready to 'colonize' space. Bigelow Aerospace is already practicing construction techniques for lunar regolith, and they've already had two or three habitable test modules put in orbit.

At first, it'll be tourists and science projects funded by sovereign states. Not long after, it'll be industrial processes that need vacuum or microgravity. But, while it'd be a purely commercial presence, some people will be needed all the time, and eventually once enough people start spending long enough periods of time up there, and its proven safe, you'll start getting people that live there (probably the moon). Next come children. Then, of course, come teachers.

Having a real "colony", with kids, teachers, and other things, would require much cheaper transportation than what we have now I'd imagine, but even without it we're going to have commercial "colonies" quite soon, probably before 2030 at the latest. The early American commercial ventures, like Roanoke and Jamestown, at first looked much like how these commercial outposts will, and they were counted as colonies, so I'll count them that way too.

The only thing that will stop them at this point is government, either because it doesn't want competition or because activists complaining perhaps about the environment or 'despoiling' the Moon get in the way. (I say shoot 'em.)


RE: so...
By SocketAKing on 5/17/2008 12:46:26 PM , Rating: 2
I love it when people try to make the church look bad (believe me, we do a better job of it ourselves and we don't need your help :P)

But seriously, if you know the apostolic doctrine of Christianity (or you just read Genesis), you will find that life on mars, the moon, or anywhere in the universe would not discredit Christianity in the least.

As long as that life is not human (human-like). If you do believe in Christianity (not trying to preach here, but...) you will know that we humans are separated from the rest of nature. This includes other planets.

We are made in God's Image (whether this means free will, understanding, or just the way we look is still up for debate), but one thing remains true, you can't ignore the fact that humans aren't just another group of monkeys swinging from tree to tree (sorry but it's true human haters).

So that brings me to my point, so what if bacteria and other species existed on mars? What you wont find is high-life and spaceships there just because you see some ice buried down beneath the surface; but this won't them for searching.

So if you think that a new species of bacteria found on mars will be the end all of Christianity, lol, think again. We've had worse issues (as opposed to non-issues), and we didn't have to leave earth to find them.


RE: so...
By maven81 on 5/17/2008 1:13:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So that brings me to my point, so what if bacteria and other species existed on mars? What you wont find is high-life and spaceships there just because you see some ice buried down beneath the surface; but this won't them for searching.

I think you don't fully grasp the implications here. The bible and other foundation books like it are entirely earth centric. In fact it's good that you mention genesis, because if you take it literally (and an awful lot of people do) God doesn't even create the stars until what, the 4th day? The more we learn about astronomy and astrobiology the more we understand how insignificant earth is in the grand scheme of things. The possibility of finding life not just on planets, but the moons of other planets (which weren't even known about until several hundred years ago!) Should really drive the point home that potentially we are not so unique after all. This is just the begining, with hundreds of planets already discovered the possibility of us finding intelligent life elsewhere is increasing not decreasing. This most definitely does not jive with an earth centric view of the universe.


RE: so...
By Amiga500 on 5/17/2008 1:59:29 PM , Rating: 3
The bible was written for an audience 2000 years ago (the older testament was written much further back).

I wish some would remember that when they start talking about the bible as some kind of factual book of physics, biology and chemistry rolled in with a bit of philosophy.


RE: so...
By Tsuwamono on 5/17/2008 6:05:02 PM , Rating: 2
on top of that the stuff was only recorded a hundred years after they happened. So most likely its wrong anyway.

But even if it happened the way they say it happened its simply a case of people explaining the unexplainable(for them) with something they can comprehend(like supernatural).

Imagine what someone 2000 years ago would think of say a TV? Miracle... a box that can watch people without them knowing!..

Its a case of simple minds explaining things in terms they can grasp.

Sorry but there is nothing supernatural about curing a disease... we do it all the time.(Keep in mind "disease" back then was the common cold 95% of the time... you die from the common cold)


RE: so...
By croc on 5/17/2008 8:18:15 PM , Rating: 2
Your 'common cold' was a bad example.
There is still no cure for the common cold, nor for influenza, TB, polio, the list goes on.


RE: so...
By masher2 (blog) on 5/18/2008 12:34:28 AM , Rating: 2
> "There is still no cure for the common cold, nor for influenza, TB, polio, the list goes on. "

Err, TB is typically quite curable, though drug-resistant strains do exist. As for the flu, antiral drugs such as Tamiflu do now exist, and are often extremely succesful in directly treating the infection.

The old saw that we can treat bacterial but not viral infections is rapidly being invalidated by the most recent crop of antiviral drugs.


RE: so...
By StinkyWhizzleTeeth on 5/18/2008 8:56:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But even if it happened the way they say it happened its simply a case of people explaining the unexplainable(for them) with something they can comprehend(like supernatural).


But even if it happened the way you say it happened it's simply a case of you explaining the unexplainable with something you can comprehend.

Imagine what someone 2000 years ago would think of say a TV? Disgusting, a box that can have us feel emotions without actually having to interact with other people! Wow, the demons certainly are working overtime to destroy us. Of course then they'd watch an episode of The Office and be instantly hooked :-)


RE: so...
By phattyboombatty on 5/19/2008 9:54:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Keep in mind "disease" back then was the common cold 95% of the time... you die from the common cold


Why would you end your post with such a baseless, ignorant statement? You immediately discredited everything you said. First, I'd love for you to explain how you know that 95% of disease 2000 years ago was the common cold or why people's immunse systems were so much weaker back then that everybody died from the common cold. I've had the common cold probably four or five times in the last year and I didn't receive any "cure" or other treatment for it, nor have I ever received a common cold vaccine. So am I some sort of evolved super human that can withstand the common cold without dying?


RE: so...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/17/2008 7:04:59 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I think you don't fully grasp the implications here. The bible and other foundation books like it are entirely earth centric.


What would you expect from books written on Earth ? Simply because the stories in the Bible are made relevant for its intended reader does not mean they are true or untrue if some bacteria is found on Mars. This is just getting silly.


RE: so...
By Yossarian22 on 5/18/2008 1:59:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Bible are made relevant for its intended reader does not mean they are true or untrue if some bacteria is found on Mars.

Well, duh.
Nobody is going to argue "Hah, we found life on Mars. Suck it Christians, you have been disproved!!". This is just another nail in the casket of an increasingly irrelevant dogmatic religion.

And who cares if the bible is relevant for its intended readers? I don't see anybody over 1900 years old strolling around now. Unless you mean modern society, where the bible functions as little more than a glorified version of Aesop's Fables


RE: so...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/18/2008 6:59:20 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Well, duh. Nobody is going to argue "Hah, we found life on Mars. Suck it Christians, you have been disproved!!".


Oh ? Isn't that what people are saying in this very discussion ? Bases on nothing more than a theory from Nasa with no proof either way.

quote:
This is just another nail in the casket of an increasingly irrelevant dogmatic religion.


Irrelevant statement. You can't prove or disprove faith, and thats what drives religion. And again, what " this " ? There is no " this " yet. You seem so anxious to express your viewpoint about religion you have made it a far gone conclusion that life elsewhere has already been found. Did I miss a major discovery or are you jumping the gun a bit ?

quote:
And who cares if the bible is relevant for its intended readers?


Well at a glance I would say those who read it care.

quote:
Unless you mean modern society, where the bible functions as little more than a glorified version of Aesop's Fables


I'm no scholar, but I'm pretty sure the meaning is more important than the message. And I think " modern society " is big enough to allow for personal beliefs don't you ? I don't know about you, but I think those " Aesop's fables " about killing, rape, lying, etc etc being wrong certainly isn't HURTING society.


RE: so...
By Yossarian22 on 5/18/2008 9:39:41 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Oh ? Isn't that what people are saying in this very discussion ? Bases on nothing more than a theory from Nasa with no proof either way.

Somebody argues that this alone disproves Christianity?
quote:
Irrelevant statement. You can't prove or disprove faith, and thats what drives religion.

That depends on the faith based claim being made and what constitutes proof.

I can show that having faith in X is not justifiable and useless. I can attempt to directly refute X via naturalistic means (science). I could show that accepting X leads to absurd conclusions (Reductio ad Absurdum). I could argue that X is incoherent as a concept. I could argue that X is a necessary consequence of Y. There is a massive list of things I could do that would lead us to reject or accept X. My method merely depends on what X is.

quote:
Did I miss a major discovery or are you jumping the gun a bit ?

Fair enough I suppose.
The diminishing of Earth-centrism in science is certainly at odds with most dogmatic theisms.
quote:
Well at a glance I would say those who read it care.

You are taking a remarkably weak position there. If you plan on arguing that we are still part of the bible's intended audience, then you have a fair amount of explaining to do. Pi being exactly 3 for instance.
quote:
I'm no scholar, but I'm pretty sure the meaning is more important than the message.

Ah, non literalism. Tantamount to admitting that your system fails to pass even the basic tests of rigor and hides behind a set of variable values in order to maintain some vague pretense of coherence.
Why not just admit to the irrelevance of the text? It is not like the bible is necessary for society to establish a moral code.
quote:
And I think " modern society " is big enough to allow for personal beliefs don't you ?
I don't know about you, but I think those " Aesop's fables " about killing, rape, lying, etc etc being wrong certainly isn't HURTING society.

Sure, teaching values are not wrong, but dogmatic religions do far more than teach a simple system of ethics. Dogmatic theism is nothing more than an antiquated set of old superstitions that has no place in modern society.

I am going to emphasize the dogmatic part of that. I have no problem with religions such as pantheism, deism, and similar religions.

And I see no reason to respect every personal belief at all. If you cannot defend your belief system, then there is either something wrong with the system or your understanding of it.


RE: so...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/19/2008 11:21:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And I see no reason to respect every personal belief at all. If you cannot defend your belief system, then there is either something wrong with the system or your understanding of it.


You don't have to. But I respect that fact that, at least in this country, people have a right to have personal beliefs and practice them. Who are you to demand they defend and justify their beliefs to you ?

All your other points are moot because your searching for something that doesn't exist. Some things just can't be quantified by the modern scientific process. Actually searching isn't the right word, it sounds more like condemnation to me. How richeous of you, don't you think ?

quote:
Dogmatic theism is nothing more than an antiquated set of old superstitions that has no place in modern society.


And yet, in the most modern societies in the world, it absolutely thrives. I guess they all didn't read your Daily Tech posts on this subject. Too bad for them that they aren't truly enlightened by your message.

You know, I don't know what I fear more. The idea of a god or something beyond our understanding, or people like you who put themselves beyond everything.


RE: so...
By Yossarian22 on 5/20/2008 9:52:25 PM , Rating: 2
Get over yourself.
quote:
You don't have to. But I respect that fact that, at least in this country, people have a right to have personal beliefs and practice them. Who are you to demand they defend and justify their beliefs to you ?

I never said they had to. If they can't, I will mock them. Who are you to tell me who I can't mock?
quote:
All your other points are moot because your searching for something that doesn't exist. Some things just can't be quantified by the modern scientific process. Actually searching isn't the right word, it sounds more like condemnation to me.

Where did I say that everything could be answered by science? It is painfully obvious that science cannot answer everything, so don't think you are telling me anything new. That is where philosophy steps in. And god is still not justified there.
quote:
And yet, in the most modern societies in the world, it absolutely thrives.

Have you sunk to appealing to numbers now? Pathetic. Most societies in the 1200s figured that the Earth was flat. The belief absolutely thrived...

Your beliefs can be justified, or they can't. If they can't be justified, then you should be questioning those beliefs. It is idiotic statements such as "we should respect people's beliefs" that led to the rise of fundamentalist extremism and a variety of other abhorrent systems.


RE: so...
By JustKidding on 5/18/2008 5:26:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The bible and other foundation books like it are entirely earth centric.


I agree with you. What works here on earth isn't necessarily going to work on planet Gelgamek.


RE: so...
By cokbun on 5/19/2008 12:05:26 AM , Rating: 1
blargh,blargh,blargh,blargh,blargh,blargh.


RE: so...
By Digimonkey on 5/20/2008 11:25:28 AM , Rating: 2
Did you just say something about apples?


RE: so...
By StinkyWhizzleTeeth on 5/18/2008 8:00:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The more we learn about astronomy and astrobiology the more we understand how insignificant earth is in the grand scheme of things.


What if the original plan for humans was to populate and explore the universe?

Psalms 8 verse 2 hints that we were created to help God with his enemies. Deduction from reading the rest of the Bible tells us that God's enemies are Lucifer, and fallen angels.

Lucifer had problems with pride. Before humans came along, only God could create. We can deduce that Lucifer would've had problems with a life form below him having more power than him. He was the greatest and most beautiful angel, but even he didn't have the ability to create, and Lucifer fancied himself attaining an even higher throne than God. So no surprise that Lucifer comes down to us to tempt us to disobey God just as he had done with all of the angels, and no surprise that God allows Lucifer to do so because all of God's creation has free choice.


RE: so...
By boogle on 5/17/2008 1:51:09 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
As long as that life is not human (human-like). If you do believe in Christianity (not trying to preach here, but...) you will know that we humans are separated from the rest of nature. This includes other planets.


That's a very convenient interpretation, one that says 'as long as its not human, the bible is still right'.

But it's not is it? I mean, when we started digging up dinosaur bones the literal interpretation of genesis no longer made sense. So now the line is 'the bible isn't meant to be taken literally, it's meant to be interpreted'.

Well by that logic, you can make anything say anything you like. If the same rules applied to law as they do to religion, well, you could do whatever you want. 'Sorry, my interpretation of murder is different, because he wronged me by sleeping with my wife I was in effect defending myself when I brutally murdered him with this ice pick'.

But I do agree with your final thought, Christianity will go on - at least in one form or another. Many people take solace in believing in a higher power for various reasons and for this reason alone, religion will last forever.

I would rather have a series of laws protecting people from religion though, things that stop religion from being able to interfere with technological development. Ethical debate, fine. Morale debate, fine. Religious debate, no. Why? Because religious arguments are often based on dogma and irrational beliefs that hold us back immensely.


RE: so...
By extechguy on 5/17/2008 6:13:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would rather have a series of laws protecting people from religion though, things that stop religion from being able to interfere with technological development. Ethical debate, fine. Morale debate, fine. Religious debate, no. Why? Because religious arguments are often based on dogma and irrational beliefs that hold us back immensely.


Right... Get rid of religious debate because other kinds of debate are always so logical and never emotional.

Have you read DailyTech discussions before?

Are the PS3/X360, Intel/AMD, nVidia/ATI, human-caused global warming vs. not, etc. discussions all rational and noble? No way.

You do not need to practice a religion - no one will force you too - but many intelligent, rational people do, and we have the right to even if some others are uncomfortable with it. Religion has not held me back personally, and the United States seems to be doing pretty well technologically too even with us Christians around.


RE: so...
By zsdersw on 5/18/2008 9:36:15 AM , Rating: 3
What you don't have the right to do, however, is legislate your religion or its values upon everyone through laws that curb freedom "because the Bible says so". Pick any of the hot-button social or economic issues of today in the US and you'll have the religious at the front of the line crusading to thwart someone's freedom because their religious beliefs compel them to do so.


RE: so...
By StinkyWhizzleTeeth on 5/18/2008 9:34:45 PM , Rating: 2
I'm a Christian and I don't like anyone using The Bible to take away freedom of choice. The Bible doesn't support it. There are examples in The Bible of people being forced to do something, but those examples can be taken out of context. It's just like how anything we say, or do, can be taken out of context if it's not compared to everything else we have ever said, or done concerning that topic.


RE: so...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/18/2008 7:01:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Religion has not held me back personally, and the United States seems to be doing pretty well technologically too even with us Christians around.


%20 of the US is non Christian.

Clearly that other 80% is holding us back right. :)


RE: so...
By Noya on 5/17/2008 8:03:56 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly.

When the "Faith" presidential debates came on...click. You're going to be the leader of the "free world" and in charge of the most powerful military in the world and you're debating fairy tales...to get the BS religious vote?

Whatever happened to the separation of church and state?


RE: so...
By Ringold on 5/18/2008 2:27:28 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Whatever happened to the separation of church and state?


The way a modern liberal would describe it, it never existed!

Go forth, educate yourself, and read public speeches of early presidents from Washington through Lincoln and beyond. They are all knee-deep in Christian theology. Compared to Washington, George Bush sounds almost atheist. Even the liberal hero Roosevelt was more open about it.

quote:
Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me, I trust, in thinking that there are none under the influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence.


Second paragraph, Washingtons First Inaugural Address, 1789. If you missed the religious references in the above, god help you. :P


RE: so...
By StinkyWhizzleTeeth on 5/18/2008 8:44:18 PM , Rating: 2
Of course how you interpret what George Washington was saying during this portion of his innauguration speech would depend on whether you believe he personally believed that Government was necessary to force people to follow God, or necessary to allow people to follow God. Anyone can be taken out of context if you don't take into account a lot of what they have said before about a topic and closely related topics.

To me seperation of church and state is kind of like the whole debate about people not supporting our troops if they don't support the war. Because you can both support the State and support the Church as long as they don't collaborate to influence other peoples beliefs. The state should protect the individual person's beliefs from government legislation, and from other people of different beliefs.

Part of the problem at the current moment is that the Federal Government has overstepped it's constitutional limits by forcing people to not do things that only harm the individual that chooses to do so. For example it is illegal for us to use certain drugs even though it doesn't harm anyone.

The church as well has influenced the government to pass unconstitutional legislation over our private lives when it comes to sex acts even though it only harms the people who take part in such acts.


RE: so...
By masher2 (blog) on 5/19/2008 3:08:58 AM , Rating: 2
> "Go forth, educate yourself, and read public speeches of early presidents from Washington through Lincoln and beyond. They are all knee-deep in Christian theology"

It's not often I have the opportunity to disagree with you, but I'm forced to point out that Washington was one of the most religious of the Founding Fathers. Others, such as Adams and Madison (the second and fourth presidents of the US) were Deists, and not Christians at all.


RE: so...
By Ringold on 5/19/2008 8:48:23 PM , Rating: 1
Fair enough, but it's been a fairly common trait. I can think of speeches given by all the "big" Presidents that referred directly to god, including Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Reagan (obviously), and I bet even Clinton showed a little piety now and then.

At the very least, I don't believe Hillary, Obama, and McCain dealing with religious issues somehow represents America becoming more religious, or that the barrier between church and state is breaking down, as Noya contends. You didn't seem to disagree with that, simply pointing out that there have been exceptions.


RE: so...
By StinkyWhizzleTeeth on 5/18/2008 10:19:14 PM , Rating: 2
I recently started to believe in Jesus, and it amazes me that any candidate who claims to be Christian would want to use our military to force anybody to do anything. At the most they should realize they're killing a lot of innocent people (wasn't Jesus innocent?), and forcing people to live a certain way (Pharisees). At the least they should realize that there are Christian's in Iraq, and they are in harms way every time we drop a bomb, or shoot bullets into a building. Not that we shouldn't be there just because we might only kill innocent Christian's.

Now if God appears in a cloud to all of the people of the United States, and tells us to go to Iraq, where we have no casualties as long as we do exactly what God tells us to do... well then that would change my mind :-)


RE: so...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/19/2008 11:34:52 AM , Rating: 2
Its been 15 years since I have picked up the Bible, but I believe there were passages reflecting this very such conflict you seem to have with religion vs military power.

quote:
I recently started to believe in Jesus, and it amazes me that any candidate who claims to be Christian would want to use our military to force anybody to do anything.


Congrats on your newly discovered faith. But don't let that turn you into some ultra idealist. I seriously doubt any leader wants to start wars.

quote:
Now if God appears in a cloud to all of the people of the United States, and tells us to go to Iraq, where we have no casualties as long as we do exactly what God tells us to do... well then that would change my mind :-)


uhhh..... sigh, nevermind.


RE: so...
By StinkyWhizzleTeeth on 5/18/2008 8:14:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But it's not is it? I mean, when we started digging up dinosaur bones the literal interpretation of genesis no longer made sense. So now the line is 'the bible isn't meant to be taken literally, it's meant to be interpreted'.


How do dinosaur bones ruin the literal interpretation of Genesis?

The book of Job in chapter 40 describes a behemoth on the land, and Job 41 describes a Leviathan.

Do a search on Google Video for Walter Veith as his Creation and Evolution videos raise a lot of good questions about the accuracy of carbon dating and fossil records.


RE: so...
By nofranchise on 5/20/2008 3:57:22 AM , Rating: 2
Please no - not that again... The dinosaurs and men lived at the same time?
Great story.

Stop mixing belief with knowledge you crazed fanatics!

I grok - so can you, but stop trying to disprove the evolution with fairy tales based on no knowledge.

Religion and science can - just - co-exist. But don't start messing around in the wrong department. Let science do it's thing, and it will let the children have their stories in peace as well.


RE: so...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/17/2008 6:58:48 PM , Rating: 3
How did this whole debate get started anyway ? Every DT topic people make it into some springboard for some hugely detached religious/pollitical/belief argument. It gets a bit old.

If " life " is found frozen in Mars or whatever it neither proves nor disproves anything in my opinion. In fact, is it even that big of a deal ? We practically just discovered that life can thrive in the crushing pressures and extreme temperatures of deep oceanic volcanic vents. Our understanding of things constantly changes and gets evaluated.

I don't see any Christians on Daily Tech forcing beliefs on anybody. But I sure see a lot of people trying to use every possible topic as a sounding board for anti-Christian opinions and bigotry. " ZOMG if life is on Mars there is no god !! " Are you listening to yourselves ?

Seriously what could of been a nice discussion about the possibility of advancing our understanding of the solar system has just been dredged down into the same pointless idealistic regurgitated argument. Nice job all.

My favorite thing about science is it has no belief system. Frozen amoeba on Mars neither proves nor disproves anything. It simply means frozen amoeba on Mars exist or don't. Thats it really.


RE: so...
By StinkyWhizzleTeeth on 5/18/2008 10:03:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My favorite thing about science is it has no belief system.


I agree that science should have no belief system, but evolutionists have hijacked biological science, and turned it partly into a belief system that many of us religious tax payers are forced to pay for.

Why does evolution/creation origin have to be taught with biology anyway?

Leaving it out seems like the best possible compromise between religious/non-religious people we can arrive at. This way nobody is losing there freedom by being forced to subsidize someone else's belief system.


RE: so...
By masher2 (blog) on 5/19/2008 3:21:51 AM , Rating: 3
> "Why does evolution/creation origin have to be taught with biology anyway?"

Because evolution is the most well proven, solidly-supported theory in the history of science. There really isn't any room for debate on this issue, regardless of what some well-meaning Sunday school teacher may have taught you.


RE: so...
By nofranchise on 5/20/2008 4:02:24 AM , Rating: 2
The Theory of Evolution isn't a belief system! Face it already!


RE: so...
By Macedon on 5/18/2008 5:09:38 PM , Rating: 3
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"

Epicurus...... don't you just love the ancient greeks ?