backtop

Science Life on Mars Theories Take a Hit
Levi Beckerson (Blog) - May 17, 2008 6:58 AM
Print 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 ?


RE: so...
By StinkyWhizzleTeeth on 5/18/2008 10:40:03 PM , Rating: 2
Epicurus was very intelligent to be able to express these questions so eloquently, and I wonder if he realized that this line of questioning is a trap.

If God prevented evil from coming into existance, and allowing the results of evil to playing itself out for all to see, then people who wanted to be evil would be in hellish situation since they would never understand why they should listen to God. Then the person that evil originated from would be able to say God is unjust because he forces us to obey His rules for no reason.

Epicurus may purposely be trying to trick people. There are examples in The Bible of people who came to try to ensare Jesus with similiar questions.


RE: so...
By Macedon on 5/20/2008 12:03:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
f God prevented evil from coming into existance, and allowing the results of evil to playing itself out for all to see, then people who wanted to be evil would be in hellish situation since they would never understand why they should listen to God. Then the person that evil originated from would be able to say God is unjust because he forces us to obey His rules for no reason.


Forgive me, but I think you are missing the point... by very much... very very much, and even if I try to explain, I am afraid I wont get the right point across


RE: so...
By abzillah on 5/17/2008 12:56:35 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not trying to defend Inspartucus, because I agree with you maven81. The whole part about religion having to give an explanation; In Islamic belief, there is life on other planets. Finding life on other planets will give us, humans, an opportunity to know a little more about God. There isn't much explaining to do. Life could have existed on Mars before Earth, or existed at the same time.
If life is found on Mars, it will be no problem for religion, what it will tell us if life existed on Mars before life on Earth or after. This will also tells us if the life form is similar or different than ours. This will answer the theory that life came from Mars, after a meteor hit it and piece of Mars landed on Earth.


RE: so...
By KuhnKat on 5/18/2008 3:50:53 AM , Rating: 2
Maven81,

I'll do that explaining right now.

We have pieces of rock that are tied to Mars and other objects that have landed on earth. Earth itself has been hit with pretty large objects. I see no problem with the idea that life was knocked out into the Solar System FROM EARTH!!

Since we really have no idea when, or how exactly, life started on earth, it could have been a couple of billion years ago leaving plenty of time for "chips off the old block" to infest anywhere in the Solar System viable. We may even have "earthlings" in interstellar space on that mission of discovery already!!

Uhh, what kind of explaining were YOU thinking about??


RE: so...
By zsdersw on 5/18/2008 9:40:10 AM , Rating: 2
It's also just as plausible that the building blocks for life arrived on Earth from another planet or the settling and formation of the solar system. Water, for example, could've very easily came to the Earth from comets.


RE: so...
By jbzx86 on 5/17/2008 10:08:06 AM , Rating: 2
There is nothing to question about space exploration. Imagine if the entire human race was focused on one goal: colonize space. Wouldn't that solve most of our problems? The issue on Earth is that we are not all unified in bettering our world. Instead, people focus on their own diluted achievements and care not for others. There is nothing politically we can do about this. As a society, we must embrace bettering ourselves to better our world. This is something that can only be taught by our parents.


RE: so...
By sld on 5/17/2008 11:07:12 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, and we can start bettering ourselves by individually being kind, unselfish, giving to the poor, sparing a thought for others....

Why would we need space programs as personal motivation?


RE: so...
By boogle on 5/17/2008 1:56:42 PM , Rating: 3
Sounds good in principle, not so good in practice. Have you done those things you mentioned? Did you just do it once or twice to 'feel good' (and therefore are being selfish) or do you do it regularly even when it inconveniences you?

Space programs are a universal goal that (in principle) better then entire planet without singling out individual countries, etc. The idea of 'just don't be selfish' goes against base human instinct. However, if you have one universal goal for everyone to work towards (doesn't have to be a space program) then everything else will fall into place behind it gradually and slowly. At least in theory.

Additionally the funding, if spent on going to space, can't really go on funding war.

To put it another way, the moon landing was broadcast worldwide. Has anything else brought the world together like that?


RE: so...
By JustTom on 5/17/2008 6:11:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, if you have one universal goal for everyone to work towards (doesn't have to be a space program) then everything else will fall into place behind it gradually and slowly.


Sounds an awful lot like communism and look how well that worked out.

How exactly would you compel nations to spend their defense budgets on space programs? All you would need is one to say no and the whole complex would fall down.

quote:
To put it another way, the moon landing was broadcast worldwide. Has anything else brought the world together like that?


The lunar landings were happened in the middle of the Vietnam war, it hardly brought about even temporary world peace.


RE: so...
By boogle on 5/18/2008 2:27:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sounds an awful lot like communism and look how well that worked out.


Sounds nothing like it, a universal goal for all to strive for is different from a deep political system. You might as well say that capitalism is communism, since the idea is to strive for money.

quote:
How exactly would you compel nations to spend their defense budgets on space programs? All you would need is one to say no and the whole complex would fall down.


It's an ideology, not a solution for right now. However, I did explicitly say 'then everything else will fall into place behind it gradually and slowly. At least in theory.'. So I'm not saying an instant change, I'm saying a slow gradual one. The idea isn't to suddenly flick a switch and say 'lets spend no money on weapons for killing each other, and instead try and advance our standard of living', its 'why not give this a chance? Lets see how it works out'.

quote:
The lunar landings were happened in the middle of the Vietnam war, it hardly brought about even temporary world peace.


Not immediately. But you could say it helped in part to avert a nuclear war. Don't forget there was Russia as well as Vietnam.


RE: so...
By zsdersw on 5/18/2008 9:59:39 AM , Rating: 2
The discovery of life or the remains of life elsewhere in the solar system or the universe, whether it's intelligent or not, will be a significant event. Consider the following:

- Many religious people don't have a problem with the biological concepts of evolution in general and natural selection in particular; where they get off the train is when those methods are used to explain what "started the ball rolling", so to speak. Whether those who think a God started the ball rolling are right or not is neither here nor there at this point. (Though I personally don't believe in any "God"-like figure)

- When life or its remains, intelligent or otherwise, is found elsewhere in the universe, it will open the door to the potential for evolution and natural selection to have formed more complex lifeforms and, as such, intelligent lifeforms.

- This discovery will change our beliefs in what our place in the universe really is. Given the truly *vast* distances of the cosmos we may at first feel very small and insignificant, but I would argue that though small compared to the vastness of space and time we're very precious.. maybe not to anyone or anything out there beyond our one little planet, but to each other. It truly does become "us", as one human race, versus the rest of the cosmos and "us", as one human race, that will face the rest of the universe together. Unity at all levels is indeed quite possible, if not probable.


RE: so...
By xsilver on 5/17/2008 2:40:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The issue on Earth is that we are not all unified in bettering our world.


If you want to take that to the nth degree; space exploration can possibly unite us by having either a great goal we can all strive or for or discover a superior alien race that can enslave us. (not sure if thats funny or disturbing!)

The other disturbing thing is that the only way I can see the human race unite together is mass genocide such that there is only one race left. Hopefully Im just the only cynic.


RE: so...
By JustTom on 5/17/2008 6:00:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The other disturbing thing is that the only way I can see the human race unite together is mass genocide such that there is only one race left.


Becuase there has never been a war between people of the same race? Historically wars have been fought almost exclusively between members of the same race.


RE: so...
By xsilver on 5/17/2008 11:49:07 PM , Rating: 2
no i was referring to the fact that historically the human race has never united as one to fight for a common cause. The closest we've come is for 2 or more races/parties to join together to fight against another race.

It would almost be interesting to see if the hollywood version of being invaded by aliens actually prompts the human race to band together or if we will still be bickering amongst ourselves.


RE: so...
By martinrichards23 on 5/17/2008 10:18:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't think life will be found anywhere in our solar system.


I'll disagree with that, I can think of one planet where life most definitely does exist.


RE: so...
By bryanW1995 on 5/17/2008 10:58:53 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe he meant to say "intelligent life".


RE: so...
By overzealot on 5/17/2008 11:25:43 AM , Rating: 3
"...because there's bugger all, down here on Earth!"


RE: so...
By retrospooty on 5/17/2008 10:22:21 AM , Rating: 2
regardless of any social, economic or political reasons... At some point in the far future we will need to find a new place to live. earth wont be habitable forever. The clock is ticking and we may only have a billion or two years left here.

Aside from that, we might find gold and/or diamonds or other precious metals on mars =)


RE: so...
By ImSpartacus on 5/17/2008 2:08:23 PM , Rating: 2
Earth will have undergone a mass extinction by a billion years or so. That's where the slate gets cleaned.


RE: so...
By Omega215D on 5/17/2008 10:20:59 PM , Rating: 1
Even the pope thinks there may be other life forms out there.


RE: so...
By Omega215D on 5/17/2008 10:23:51 PM , Rating: 2
What the hell? Auto downrate for???


RE: so...
By winterspan on 5/18/2008 5:00:29 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I almost want to question the point of space exploration.


I just can't fathom the perspective one has to have to honestly have this opinion on space exploration. I just don't get it. I'm not a professional astronomer or a cosmologist or even a scientist. I've not even had a telescope before. Looking up at the night sky on a clear night is all that it takes for me to be enamored by our incredible universe.

Do you not look into the sky and wonder what is out there? Do you not find our universe fascinating? Do you not view the search and exploration for other life in our solar system and the universe at large a noble cause? Do you not think it is a worthwhile cause for humanity to push its boundaries outward into the galaxy?

Similarly, do you not believe that the space programs of the 50's, 60's, and 70's, including the Apollo moon landing, had an enormous impact on that generation? Have you considered the impact that that had on children who became scientists and engineers? Do you not think future space exploration will motivate and fascinate children of today to pursue science and technology careers and ambitions? If your answer to these questions is "no", I suggest you watch some re-runs of Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" series..

As far as our problems here on Earth, I agree that we have many and I truly hope for a better future for humanity and I actively try to work towards that goal through volunteering and political action. But we will most likely always have some form of problems so it doesn't do any good to just give up our most basic of human aspirations. And in fact, space exploration and research is responsible for many great inventions and technologies; similar research in the future just may lead to technologies that will end up helping not only space exploration, but our problems here at home as well.


RE: so...
By elitecamper on 5/18/2008 6:02:31 AM , Rating: 2
There is life on every planet including the sun, its just not visible from this dimension.


RE: so...
By pxavierperez on 5/19/2008 12:08:13 PM , Rating: 2
Huahahahaha!!

I can't stop laughing from reading your respond.


RE: so...
By rippleyaliens on 5/17/2008 9:15:23 PM , Rating: 2
The Killer is, That with all this religion- We still have racism.
Myself, i firmly believe that there are other planets with life, with lower technology, as well as some with MUCH higher Technology.
With GOD- Obviously there has to be more than 1 EARTH type planet. Why would God stop with 1.
Science wise- Considering that our GALAXY, is but 1, with numerous solar systems. The chance's of other planets go higher and higher..
Life on Mars, Well if just 1 piece of bacteria is there- BOOM that is life.

Should we spend money to investigate. YES.. for without any investment, there is no knowledge.
Will we colonize any other planets.- YES, but not in our lifetime. Meaning, to actually have a civilization on another planet, not just a handful of people.
I actually envision, that one day, our planet, 1. will self destroy itself (Climate change, asteroid, nuclear war, or the planet will just CHANGE, as it has in the past).
2. Invasion- We cannot be the only species , solar system, galaxy, --whatevers next--
3. We get better as a planet, and invade another planet.....(maybe)..

God/No God.. whatever.. Our current religions are based on 1. Racist - Wether they hated barbarians, english, arabs.. whatever.. it was made over 2000 years ago.. According to a King James Version- That alone, says, that it was HIS version.
2. In a time, in which religion offers something to devote to. Meaning, a form of control..(remember wars have been about religion, since the birth of religion)
3. A form of control, to give reasons for odd events, reasons to kill, reasons to give your wealth.. etc.... But also a way to keep people focused on single good choices...

For if there was truely 2 people created.. ADAM and EVE.. then realistically we are alllll related. Then why do Whites hate Blacks? Religious people still fail to answer that simple question. Why if you believe in 1 GOD, who created MAN then his MATE.. IE the mother of life, then why do whites hate blacks. Why do blacks hate whites, why are chinese different from arabs?


RE: so...
By Clauzii on 5/17/2008 9:47:39 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is, as some scientists also have mentioned, just by getting there with probes, we might be the ones who brought micro-organisms there. So to find out if there was life before, we'll need to be able to calc those out of the equation somehow. And what if those same organisms (from earth) mutate, It'll get even harder to say FOR SURE.


RE: so...
By StinkyWhizzleTeeth on 5/18/2008 9:16:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For if there was truely 2 people created.. ADAM and EVE.. then realistically we are alllll related. Then why do Whites hate Blacks? Religious people still fail to answer that simple question. Why if you believe in 1 GOD, who created MAN then his MATE.. IE the mother of life, then why do whites hate blacks. Why do blacks hate whites, why are chinese different from arabs?


Maybe for the same reason certain groups of people decided to head to Europe, and some decided to head to Africa. I doubt people headed off on there own, and that they flipped a coin to determine there direction. Just like today's people they problably had a preference for certain neighborhoods over others based on cultural choices.

African's seem to naturally feel more comfortable with certain behaviors, and Whites seem to naturally feel more comfortable with certain behaviors. Some things African's do can seem hostile to White's, a black person may show slight disapproval to a white person but there culture is different enough that the white person misinterprets the behavior to be hostile. This happens the other way around as well. I used to be afraid of blacks until I figured this out, and now my closest friend is black.

God wouldn't need a wife, because he can create life without mating. And man without woman no longer has the image of God, and vice versa. It takes both a man and a woman to understand who God is, because God is both. God wouldn't need sex organs, nor does he have a body like ours.

As for Chinese, Arabs, and all the variety of humans we have, this is because God apparently likes diversity in his creation. Just look at dogs. They all have the same genetic code even though there are vast differences between how those genes are expressed. You have tiny chihuahas, and huge german shepherds, and a large variety of wild dogs from wolves to foxes.

Life would get boring if we all looked and behaved the exact same.


RE: so...
By masher2 (blog) on 5/19/2008 3:16:37 AM , Rating: 2
> "this is because God apparently likes diversity in his creation. Just look at dogs."

The various breeds of dogs were artificially created by selective breeding...most of them in the last couple hundred years or so. That variety is the result of mankind, not God.


RE: so...
By Clauzii on 5/17/2008 9:38:00 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe we have been here before? When Mars was closer to the Sun, it might have had the same conditions as Earth today?

If this is true: Yes, we are from Mars - a whole bunch of "aliens" :))


RE: so...
By Omega215D on 5/17/2008 10:20:04 PM , Rating: 2
Venus could also have been the same way before the runaway greenhouse effect. Looks like our targets are now Europa, Mars, Enceladus and maybe Venus.


RE: so...
By zsdersw on 5/19/2008 6:55:43 AM , Rating: 2
It's an odd juxtaposition.. Venus is too hot, Earth is just right, and Mars is too cold (we're on the Goldilocks planet), but those temperature differences are not simply a matter of the distance between each planet and the sun, but of each planet's atmosphere. None of them have to be in the future what they are today, especially Mars.


I don't understand scientists
By NightAngel1981 on 5/17/2008 1:10:48 PM , Rating: 1
With the percentage of life creating itself out of pure chance, how can anyone who believes in the big bang theory and life creating itself from lightning striking a puddle and creating proteins... etc...

The conditions for life to exist are so numerous and rare to the point of impossibility that for it to happen twice in the same solar system are absolutely ridiculous.

I personally believe that everything was created by God and that if he chose to make life on other planets that he can darn well do what he wants. So just from my perspective someone who believes in creationism would be able to believe life exist easier than a big bang theorist.




RE: I don't understand scientists
By maven81 on 5/17/2008 1:31:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The conditions for life to exist are so numerous and rare to the point of impossibility that for it to happen twice in the same solar system are absolutely ridiculous.


So are they rare, or numerous? Make up your mind!
What's ridiculous, is thinking that one has all the answers. Science is interesting precisely because there's so much we don't know, and more questions that appear every time we have answers.
We did not even know there was bacteria until relatively recently in human history. Now we know there organisms that can survive enormous radiation levels, heat, lack of sunlight and oxygen etc. Who's to say that life has to be water based in the first place? It wouldn't surprise me at all if it could evolve from entirely different elements.


RE: I don't understand scientists
By NightAngel1981 on 5/17/2008 2:14:25 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, i meant to mention that there are numerous conditions which must exist for the rare circumstance to happen.

But yes i was basing my statement on one of the current theories of life's creation which could certainly change.

But would it be too much to agree that whatever the conditions for life to spontaneously generate itself on earth or any other planet, via means thought to explain it now or means thought up in the future, that the process would be very complicated and likely not to happen all the time all over the place.

That "life" however termed is a rarity and not likely to just be everywhere.


RE: I don't understand scientists
By GaryJohnson on 5/17/2008 7:40:22 PM , Rating: 2
The conditions may not be that rare or complicated. That's what we're trying to find out by searching our own solar system for other signs of life.

We have no means to explain how life came into being, and no theory has been proven to be more correct than any other.
Exogenesis is just as valid a theory as the omphalos hypothesis at this point.


RE: I don't understand scientists
By Ringold on 5/17/2008 8:03:17 PM , Rating: 2
Even if they are rare, planets that are in a habitable orbit of their parent star would likely stay habitable for many billions of years. A planet in just the right orbit of something like a red or brown dwarf could be in a sweet spot for life for longer, I think, than the universe is likely even to survive, right?

When we start talking about such vast periods of time and vast numbers of stars and planets that make up a galaxy, even if the odds are slim for any individual planet during any individual year, over billions of years it ought to be a statistical given that life does evolve.


RE: I don't understand scientists
By Some1ne on 5/18/2008 12:30:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
With the percentage of life creating itself out of pure chance, how can anyone who believes in the big bang theory and life creating itself from lightning striking a puddle and creating proteins... etc...


Because of the size of the playground. There are billions of stars in each galaxy, and billions of galaxies in the universe. Each star may potentially harbor close to a dozen planets, and each planet may provide several billion years over which life may develop. So even if the odds of life arising by chance on a given planet are 0.000000000001% (one trillionth of one percent), it's still bound to happen at least a few times here and there. Once you start to understand the sheer scope of the universe, life becomes much more of an inevitability than an impossibility. On earth and elsewhere.

quote:
I personally believe that everything was created by God and that if he chose to make life on other planets that he can darn well do what he wants.


Good for you. However, believing in god doesn't mean you have to denigrate the beliefs of people who don't. Be content in your beliefs, and let us be content in ours.


RE: I don't understand scientists
By NightAngel1981 on 5/18/2008 12:46:05 AM , Rating: 1
And how about you don't tell people what they are or are not doing. I am not denigrating anyone, I am expressing an opinion, which you apparently find hard to swallow without attacking me.

That life exists elsewhere in my opinion would be easier for someone with faith than someone without it. Not a degrading thought for any persons in any way, agree or not it doesn't put anyone down.


RE: I don't understand scientists
By Some1ne on 5/18/2008 3:24:15 AM , Rating: 2
It's possible that I misinterpreted you point, but to be clear, I read:

quote:
With the percentage of life creating itself out of pure chance, how can anyone who believes in the big bang theory and life creating itself from lightning striking a puddle and creating proteins... etc...


as:

"With the odds of life creating itself out of pure chance, how can anyone believe in the big bang theory and life creating itself from lightning striking a puddle and creating proteins, etc.?"

...which comes across as a backhanded way of implying that anyone who believes in the scientific version of creation is stupid. It's like if I were to post "with all the evidence presented by the fossil record, how can anyone believe in creationism?". It's a way of marginalizing the viewpoint, without necessarily looking like an overt attack, even though what it's really saying is "my way of thinking is the only valid one".

So my point was simply, why is it even necessary to bring up the issue of which one seems more plausible/fits more "easily"? You believe in a creation-themed explanation of life, and that's fine, and some other people believe in a more science-themed explanation, and that's also fine. Obviously you chose the creation-themed explanation because it makes the most sense to you (and similarly other people choose the scientific explanation because it makes the most sense to them), so why is it necessary to raise the issue in the first place?

But like I said, maybe I misinterpreted your initial post.


RE: I don't understand scientists
By masher2 (blog) on 5/18/2008 12:45:56 AM , Rating: 5
> "how can anyone who believes in...lightning striking a puddle and creating proteins... etc..."

I suppose you've never heard of the Miller-Urey experiment, where lightning was run through gases simulating the primodial atmosphere of the Earth. After a short period, a large amount of amino acids (the building blocks for all proteins) were found to be spontaneously created.

Countless subsequent experiments have not only verified this, but demonstrated spontaneous formation of amino acids into proteins, and even simplistic cell-like objects.


RE: I don't understand scientists
By NightAngel1981 on 5/18/08, Rating: -1
By masher2 (blog) on 5/18/2008 12:55:12 AM , Rating: 5
Eh? If you believe that, you misunderstand it entirely. While someone had to "make" this particular experiment itself occur, it clearly demonstrates that amino acids would have formed spontaneously in Earth's early history.


RE: I don't understand scientists
By Sandok on 5/18/2008 6:01:36 AM , Rating: 4
I understand why you believe in Creationism ;) That post was priceless!


RE: I don't understand scientists
By Yossarian22 on 5/18/2008 1:39:31 AM , Rating: 2
Hrmmmm....
quote:
With the percentage of life creating itself out of pure chance, how can anyone who believes in the big bang theory and life creating itself from lightning striking a puddle and creating

quote:
I personally believe that everything was created by God and that if he chose to make life on other planets that he can darn well do what he wants

Implausibility cuts both ways. You find the idea of lighting striking compounds to eventually create life, and your proposed solution is "God did it"?! That seems much more plausible...

It is idiotic statements like yours that have led to the ridicule of theism as a whole (dogmatic theism certainly deserves it).

The Cosmological Argument ceased being interesting 1000 years ago. Please at least try to be original.


RE: I don't understand scientists
By NightAngel1981 on 5/18/2008 2:40:56 PM , Rating: 2
Actually i do not believe that God made lightning strike anything. I believe in creation as described in the Bible.

My statement was merely to point out that the experiment to prove that life can create itself is based on someone else's intervention. At the smallest level of life there are laws that are followed. Did the big bang make laws as well.

Was the weight of a proton randomly selected by chance..Was the gravity we enjoy made because it was needed to exist all on its own..It takes more faith to believe that all the necessary variables just happened to get thrown into the pot all at once and work, First Time. Cause if the weight of water was different than what it is when it freezes life couldn't exist on this planet. If the pull of gravity was any less or any more than life wouldn't exist. On and on it goes, blind chance with the numbers stacked against you, or and orderly and defined universe made by an orderly and defined God.

This is off-topic but so are you.


By Yossarian22 on 5/18/2008 9:52:32 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Actually i do not believe that God made lightning strike anything. I believe in creation as described in the Bible.

That did not help your case. You believe that the early bird not only gets the worm, but predates it. But that is off topic.
quote:
My statement was merely to point out that the experiment to prove that life can create itself is based on someone else's intervention.

Nobody intervenes to create a bolt of lightning. Lighting is spontaneous.
quote:
At the smallest level of life there are laws that are followed. Did the big bang make laws as well.

Perhaps. Nobody knows. Maybe laws are nothing more than abstractions made by our mind. Maybe causality is just a deluded figment of our imagination. Either way, I prefer intellectual honesty over making baseless claims.

Anyhow, the anthropic principle addressed all of your points nicely. If we were not suited to the conditions of the universe, we would not exist to observe it.


Terraforming
By AmazighQ on 5/17/2008 12:12:40 PM , Rating: 2
i think they wanna use terra-forming on Mars
ill take an other 50-100 year and the earth will start to bukle under its weight
these day you got about 1/1.5 billion people living the 'good' life and they use for about 90% of the earth resourses.
today world population is at 6.668 billion and they predict ill be 12 billion within 100 years.
they maximum the planet can handle is about 40 billion with modest use of planet resourses
and if they dont find life there they will find heavy metals or rare heavy metals and other resourses

finding life on mars isnt first priority




RE: Terraforming
By hcahwk19 on 5/17/2008 12:27:23 PM , Rating: 2
Where do you get your 40 billion number from? Is there some Earth rulebook somewhere that says that there is a 40 billion limit on the number of humans that can be on the earth at one time?


RE: Terraforming
By Lezmaka on 5/17/2008 6:55:46 PM , Rating: 2
You mean you didn't see the sign posted by the MWFM (Milky Way Fire Marshall) stating that the maximum occupancy of Earth is 40 billion?


RE: Terraforming
By masher2 (blog) on 5/18/2008 12:13:53 AM , Rating: 2
> "Where do you get your 40 billion number from? "

30-40 billion is the accepted figure that can be fed, by simply applying modern agricultural methods to all the nations on Earth.

If one assumes further technological advancements in agriculture, then there's no reason the earth can't support a far larger population than that.


RE: Terraforming
By boogle on 5/17/2008 2:02:04 PM , Rating: 2
First you say that the Earth will buckle under its weight in 100 years (12 billion people), then you say it can handle 40 billion people! Make your mind up!

Mining Mars is impractical, even if it's laced with gold, indium, platinum, titanium, etc. etc. The distances involved are immense, the power needed ludicrous, and so on. Its much more viable to mine the moon, and that's still not viable.

We're not really short of metals on this planet (there's loads and loads of aluminium ore for example), we're short of energy. I would argue the top priority is getting a working fusion reactor - then build loads of them. This also has the side effect of generating the heavy metals you want as part of the reaction process.


RE: Terraforming
By Clauzii on 5/17/2008 9:58:03 PM , Rating: 2
Well, there ARE some materials that might be worth getting from the moon, such as Helium-3. It's not sure, that it is a usable alternative to the deuterium-tritium used in current experimental reactors, but some effort is put into it:

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/19296/?a=f


RE: Terraforming
By AmazighQ on 5/18/2008 6:05:28 AM , Rating: 2
> "First you say that the Earth will buckle under its weight in 100 years (12 billion people), then you say it can handle 40 billion people! Make your mind up!"

i said with modest use of planet resourses
and before i said about 1-1.5 billion people use 90% of earth resourses
the way its going now alot more people will life a 'good' life
so lets say 6 billion people have it beter means that you will need 5 times more resources
and that is a minimum that only will be different if there is a WIII


RE: Terraforming
By Ringold on 5/17/2008 7:45:56 PM , Rating: 2
Thomas Malthus was wrong. He was wrong, and China's ability to lift several hundred million in to a middle class with just a touch of capitalism is modern proof of it. Beyond that, people have claimed what you're claiming constantly through history, and have constantly had to raise their baseless estimates as to what standard of living the Earth could support as economic growth rushed right past previous ones. India is also rapidly pulling millions in to a middle class, and Asia is already starting the process of moving labor-intensive work to Africa, starting the same type of process that has reduced poverty in Asia there. Global economic growth is running around 5% if I'm not mistaken, and that's going to continue trucking right along for decades.

The idea we can even estimate a percentage of "resources" already in use is insane. You can't do it. We don't know where every deposit of every resource is. We voluntarily don't even touch wide swaths of the Earth. And before we get some environmentalist rant about something like water -- guess what. We can clean sea water. It's already done globally, and even here in Florida it's become the most cost-effective option moving forward. If we run out of sea water, then we really are in trouble.

Besides, people are behind the times are their population growth propaganda anyway; people in the real world are already trying to start tackling de population in the developed world, not run-away growth. Even China is turning a little grey. Japan, Italy -- they face potential disaster in 30-50 years if nothing changes.

Malthus was spot-on for a low-tech stagnant agricultural society. For all other forms, he was wrong.


Stop with the Catholic bashing already
By michal1980 on 5/17/2008 5:29:21 PM , Rating: 1
the ignorance is overwhelming on cathloics, the amount of sterotyping about roman catholics that is allowed is sickening.

For example, the church came out this week

"The Pope's chief astronomer says that life on Mars cannot be ruled out.

Writing in the Vatican newspaper, the astronomer, Father Gabriel Funes, said intelligent beings created by God could exist in outer space.

Father Funes, director of the Vatican Observatory near Rome, is a respected scientist who collaborates with universities around the world.

The search for forms of extraterrestrial life, he says, does not contradict belief in God. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm

Or are we going to allow other sterotypes to go on? Chinese people are all good at math, girls suck at math, black people are bad. etc etc.




RE: Stop with the Catholic bashing already
By AmazighQ on 5/18/2008 6:11:50 AM , Rating: 2
people cant stop bashing the Catholic religeon
cause its believe are the opisite of 'freedom'
people are dumb and ignorant,so let it be
are you gonna get pissed of because someone wants to tell you how he wants 'freedom' and start bashes catholic religoen to feel beter about himself

Freedom leads to egocentrisme


RE: Stop with the Catholic bashing already
By lompocus on 5/18/08, Rating: 0
RE: Stop with the Catholic bashing already
By masher2 (blog) on 5/18/2008 8:26:31 PM , Rating: 2
> "So ya. We're here, and we believe in what we believe, and we're statistically a shitload more successful than christians"

Since when did Catholics stop being members of the set of all Christians?


By StinkyWhizzleTeeth on 5/19/2008 2:06:53 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Since when did Catholics stop being members of the set of all Christians?


Around the end of the Roman Empire when they started compromising with Pagan beliefs. The Virgin Mary was a fertility goddess, and Sunday worship was accepted because Pagan's worshipped on that day even though Jesus kept the Sabbath, and the concept that hell is eternal, and more. I have Catholic friends, and I believe there will be well meaning Catholic's in heaven who didn't have an opportunity to personally know the Bible. It's interesting to me that the Catholic political system has admitted that many of its beliefs aren't from the Bible, but the Vatican claims to be Gods representative on earth, which is why it can do unbiblical things like having its religious officials forgive your sins.

Because of these reasons Christian's should be different from Catholics.

I say should because many Christian organizations also have unbiblical beliefs, political goals, support unbiblical actions, and teach unsound doctrine. This really isn't surprising to me. When I started studying the Bible I was amazed by how often I didn't find stuff in the Bible that I assumed was in there somewhere. Those things I couldn't find always had Catholic origins.

The Catholic church has stated that churches that worship on Sunday are actually Catholic churches, and I would agree. The number of Christian's who don't have any Catholic beliefs is really quite small.

So to truly answer your question, Catholics stopped being members of the set of all Christian's around 500 or 600 AD. But you are still correct to include most Catholics as Christian and vice versa :-)


By Ringold on 5/18/2008 8:27:00 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It's these idiots preaching 'free speech' and then censoring everyone who doesn't agree with them by downrating them into oblivion.


quote:
It doesn't matter because they keep on going through life in their crazy dogmatic strict


Is it not amusing that those that would attack the religious do so with zealotry and with such a closed mind that rivals anything religious groups do? The viciousness of the environmentalists and socialist groups today equals the language and closed minds of any Islamic terrorist group, simply minus acts of violence. Neither group looks at facts that are contrary to their beliefs, neither is willing to cede ground, and opponents to both are supposed to be evil.

And yet the Pope goes around asking people to chill out, talk to each other, and try to get along, and yet Catholics get attacked.


By MRwizard on 5/18/2008 7:53:52 PM , Rating: 2
Please ask the vatican then to edit the bible in this case?


Life elsewhere
By DXRick on 5/18/2008 5:04:20 PM , Rating: 2
Finding any form of life on another planet is very important for us. We need to have some evidence that life on Earth is not just a fluke. The idea that life can be created by certain physical conditions will help resolve the Creationism versus Evolution debate. Of course, to some, it could also just show that God mucked around with other planets.




RE: Life elsewhere
By GlassHouse69 on 5/19/2008 11:37:56 AM , Rating: 4
you are a moron.


Faulty Conclusion?
By Some1ne on 5/17/2008 10:35:58 PM , Rating: 2
Okay, in all probability, the astronomers probably know better than I do, but:

quote:
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.


Couldn't that also simply be caused by the fact that Mars has only about 38% of the gravity that the earth has, causing an equivalent amount of ice to exert less force on the surface of Mars than it does on the surface of the earth?




RE: Faulty Conclusion?
By masher2 (blog) on 5/18/2008 12:22:52 AM , Rating: 2
The surface gravity of Mars was already well known however. The new data suggests that-- even when taking into account the lesser force exerted by that gravity -- the Martian lithosphere is colder and more rigid than first thought.

For what it's worth, however, the leap from that to the assumption that Martian aquifers must therefore follow Earthly patterns, and be substantially deeper than first thought, is a bit unjustified in my opinion. It reminds me of Sagan's famous comments about early astronomer's conclusions about Venus being obscured entirely by clouds:

Observation: can't see a damn thing.
Conclusion: must be dinosaurs there!


Re:Re:Re:
By APHYXE on 5/20/2008 12:05:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What if the original plan for humans was to populate and explore the universe?


What if we already have and/or are exploring the universe? I know that sounds a little far fetched. Most of our world's "written" history has been eradicated throughout the past 2000+ years. Library of alexandria, Nalanda, House of wisdom, Royal Library, all of these containing history, and literature that was unique. Now it's all gone. These are just libraries that we "know" about. How many libaries in various regions of the world succumbed to religious conflicts? Dating back as far as when most of the world worshipped heathen Gods. If you're on a religious crusade to spread your word, and conquer your enemies of opposing ideas, beliefs, religious values, etc. Would you not destroy all evidence so that later generations do not find out? That's what has happened for countless centuries in the past.

I may not be as educated as some of you guys here - but my own "beliefs", I do believe in a higher being to an extent, I do believe in evolution, and I do believe the world is much much older than some fanatical christians state that it is. Yet, what has always puzzled me is to see every other thing in the world that has gone through "evolution" for millions of years, yet what catalyst made human's so special to branch off from the rest of the primates, and become so much more diverse, intelligent, etc. I don't buy it.

The human brain has not changed that much in the past 10,000 years or longer? You can time travel to 10,000 BC snatch up a cave baby, and that child will grow up just like the rest of the kids do in the here and now. If that's the case, if homosapien has only been around for 100,000+ years? And the earliest civilizations known date back to 25,000 BC (sumarian?), at which point, I'd say even then 25000-30000 BC homosapiens were just as capable then as we are now. So unless we see a massive metamorphis, in both intelligence, and physique in the next 1000 years, I don't buy it.

Maybe we already "HAVE" been to the stars as a species, maybe we already "ARE" traversing the stars as a species. Some interesting reads, I've read over the years beyond typical religious literature, are the "earth chronicles", Which has some fantastic fictional ideas about men, i say fiction - but the author believes he has evidence supporting all that he's written in these books.

Some parts the author states, Sumarian language - at least if I remember correctly it was sumarian, that the word Jehovah translates into "men of ship". That Jehovah came to the world, and enslaved the people to mine for its precious minerals (Gold, gems, etc) Enslaving the "cavemen" as the miners, These taskmasters were eventually caught having sexual relations with the "cavewomen" and exiled from the jehovah. "Fallen angels?" Fallen angels taught "men" how to make war, and thus they rebelled against their captors, killing them. First War between heaven and hell.

These Jehovah, were maybe also called Elohim, Which were giants, So the half-giant from the bible was the son of a pure blood elohim (fallen angel) Also it talks about a lost civilization of the elohim supposebly buried somewhere in eastern asia, most likely in the deserts. There's 3 or 4 books, I'm not sure, it's been so long since I read them, but they go into detail about alot of things that border fantasy in today's society. Lost city of atlantis, Lost continent of Lemuria (Mu), Draconians, Seraphims, Etc.

One thing that did stick out in my memory, is that he claimed that a tablet of the solar system was found in a sumarian dig in the middle east in the early 20th century, that was completely accurate to today's model, except that where was another planet that was signified as home. Digging further into that, alot of civilizations in history spoke other another world, or (star) where Death came from. Later historians changed it from star (world) to asteroid, or prophets; the bible calling it wormwood.

That's something to think about, What if we "did" come from another world, or rather we are the bastard children of persons who did come from the stars. The navajo lore says that we've come from many worlds (dimensions), and we are on our 4th world(dimension) now. You can read this here. http://www.crystalinks.com/navajo.html - If any of that makes sense :)

Point being, its fact that as time progresses, the story is changed, warped, manipulated, and twisted. We see it everyday. In movies, as a new incarceration of an old movie is reinvented in the ideas of its new director. In books, read the Original Little Red Riding Hood. In music, etc. If society continues the same route, as it is now, for the next 5000 years. If we still have movies and music by then. There will have been so many reincarerations of Batman, Superman, X-men, War of the Worlds, etc that Noone even if they watch all versions (if it's at all possible). I bet you the Original War of the Worlds, would be "NOTHING" like the War of the worlds version in 71st century. :-)

Even today how can you guarentee what you see is the bottom-line truth? We only see what our leaders and the media want us to see.




RE: Re:Re:Re:
By nofranchise on 5/20/2008 6:04:48 AM , Rating: 2
*dons tinfoil hat*

Amen brother!

Give praise to the Great Zarquon!


It just gets worse
By TMV192 on 5/17/2008 10:52:52 AM , Rating: 2
Back in the day it was one time believed Mars had life just like Earth and we were going to meet one day in the future. Then it was found that Mars was baron and all its water had disappeared, then the ice caps weren't of regular water, then the air was unbreathable and the atmosphere too thin to have soft landings, then the ionosphere was broken down, now this




geeks pwnd
By GlassHouse69 on 5/18/2008 12:08:02 AM , Rating: 2
too bad. it just doesnt exist.

sux for the hopeful who cant appreciate life on earth.




Delays Delays.........
By phxfreddy on 5/20/2008 3:58:29 PM , Rating: 2
....how will I ever destroy the Earth? ( at least he'll take out Al Gore in the process )




“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki