backtop


Print 226 comment(s) - last by MrPoletski.. on Feb 9 at 9:09 AM


  (Source: mb/AnandTech Forums)
The Red Planet of Mars may have life on it after all

Although NASA is without a leader and will likely have to announce layoffs in the immediate future, the U.S. space agency may be ready to announce alien microbes living below the Martian soil are the cause of a methane haze surrounding the Red Planet of Mars.

NASA is expected to have a press conference at its Washington D.C. office to confirm the findings.  News of the scheduled press conference was first posted in The Sun, with NASA and European scientists excited about the possible findings from such a monumental announcement. 

Another British newspaper, Telegraph, quotes the upcoming release to claim: "Living systems produce more than 90 per cent of Earth's atmospheric methane; the balance is of geochemical origin. On Mars, methane could be a signature of either."

Researchers from around the world have shown a greater interest in the Red Planet, as possible traces of water and ice dust have raised hopes of discovering signs of life on or underneath the planet's surface.  Even though methane is created on Earth by volcanoes, scientists haven't found any active volcanoes on the Red Planet.

In addition, it seems NASA researchers found high levels of methane in the same regions as water vapor clouds, which are absolutely necessary for life.  The study was conducted during a seven year examination of the planet.

It's possible the Martian life form is in suspended animation, but it's possible they could be revived, according to John Murray, a Mars Express European space probe scientist told The Sun.

British space expert Nick Pope spoke with the online news site and showed enthusiasm and excitement over the finding.  "What could be more profound than to know it's not just out there?  "We've really only scratched the surface -- it's an absolute certainty that there is life out there and we are not alone."

Regardless of this announcement, NASA, ESA, JAXA, Chinese and Russian space programs all have shown an interest in Mars exploration.  Science fiction fans long dreamed of life on Mars -- even before space probes were launched to the planet -- and excitement will continue to grow as researchers learn more about the planet.



Comments     Threshold


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

I wish it were true, but...
By lco45 on 1/15/2009 4:21:20 AM , Rating: 5
Announcing that methane on Mars could be generated by either life or geology doesn't exactly mean they are announcing that there's life on Mars.

Given the odds of life occurring on a planet next door, surely the odds are tilted way in favour of geology.

And just to get in early, if life is found on Mars my theory is panspermia from a large object striking the earth soon after life started here.

Fingers crossed, this would be so sweet.

Luke




RE: I wish it were true, but...
By MrPoletski on 1/15/2009 4:59:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And just to get in early, if life is found on Mars my theory is panspermia from a large object striking the earth soon after life started here.


But it would be more interesting if it was independantly created and evolved life that has zero ancestry from anywhere ;)


RE: I wish it were true, but...
By lco45 on 1/15/2009 5:53:05 AM , Rating: 4
Yeah but the odds of it happening twice are high enough, let alone it happening independently on two neighboring planets.

Luke


RE: I wish it were true, but...
By MrPoletski on 1/15/2009 8:43:19 AM , Rating: 2
Well, the odds of life spontaneously forming are incredible slim...

but.. when you have billions of years to play with, I'd say the chances become realistic.


RE: I wish it were true, but...
By on 1/15/09, Rating: -1
RE: I wish it were true, but...
By dj LiTh on 1/15/2009 1:52:43 PM , Rating: 4
If someone could stop your life from posting here, now that would be a miracle.


RE: I wish it were true, but...
By on 1/15/09, Rating: -1
RE: I wish it were true, but...
By tastyratz on 1/15/2009 4:31:41 PM , Rating: 2
eh,
don't worry about it. The guy gets instantly voted down, his comment turns red, and then nobody has to bother reading it. If hes posting here he really is wasting more of his own time than anyone else's to be honest. I'm not losing any sleep over it, that's why we have the rating system :-)


RE: I wish it were true, but...
By FaceMaster on 1/19/2009 12:05:47 PM , Rating: 2
But the red comments are so much fun!


RE: I wish it were true, but...
By MrPoletski on 1/16/2009 5:37:15 AM , Rating: 3
Don't feed the troll.


RE: I wish it were true, but...
By lebe0024 on 1/15/2009 11:31:06 AM , Rating: 2
Are you basing that on actual math or just a hunch? If it's a hunch, I'd have to agree with you. But math has a funny way with hunches.


RE: I wish it were true, but...
By timmiser on 1/15/2009 12:24:20 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, in order to come up with "odds" you must have data and we are just in the early stages of collecting that data.

If life is found on Mars & Earth, then we are 2 for 2 in finding life on other planets and the early odds would reflect this.


RE: I wish it were true, but...
By derwin on 1/18/2009 3:31:56 AM , Rating: 2
Four words for you my friend:
Statistically (in)Significant Sampling Space.

We will never have a significant sampling space, unless the universe could be proven to be near completely homogenious at the macroscopic (i.e. biomolecular) and geological (not to mention astrological) scales.


RE: I wish it were true, but...
By freeagle on 1/16/2009 7:14:49 AM , Rating: 3
We know very little about how life begun, yet you feel confident enough talking about probability of it happening??


By MrPoletski on 2/9/2009 9:07:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
We know very little about how life begun, yet you feel confident enough talking about probability of it happening??


That doesn't stop religious nutters does it ;)

All I said was that slim chance per time period multiplied by uncomprehandable length of time = good chance.

I believe we will find life on Mars, however slight and simple that life might be.


RE: I wish it were true, but...
By MrBungle123 on 1/15/2009 12:44:27 PM , Rating: 2
I really think odds are meaningless in cases like this. Experiments have shown that amino acids and organic compounds will self assemble if the conditions are right, its not a question of odds is one of if the correct starting conditions existed or not.


RE: I wish it were true, but...
By geddarkstorm on 1/15/2009 2:02:35 PM , Rating: 2
Except, those self assembled polymers did not form a living (growing, reproducing, metabolizing) system. Not to mention that the delta G for two amino acids linking together is positive, meaning it's a non-spontaneous process and requires energy input to continue. Life is a bit more complex than crystallization (self assembly in an ordered pattern).


RE: I wish it were true, but...
By SilentSin on 1/15/2009 2:55:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not to mention that the delta G for two amino acids linking together is positive, meaning it's a non-spontaneous process and requires energy input to continue.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/08101...

Considering the number of dormant volcanoes on Mars I'd say there was plenty of energy to go around for quite awhile that could have sustained some very interesting reactions, given enough time. What's the longest timespan a lab has let a Miller-Urey experiment run for?

Articles published earlier this year were also pretty interesting:
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/science/July-A...
http://www.dailytech.com/Scientists+Discover+Virus...

Seems that hot, steamy conditions are prone to cause some weird mutations.

It's a big leap to go from random amino acids to even something as basic as a virus, but it's some food for thought. I've always thought life to be incredibly resilient and always surprising. I wouldn't rule anything out.


RE: I wish it were true, but...
By sld on 1/19/2009 11:55:04 AM , Rating: 2
Did the Miller-Urey experimenters remember to mention that a whole host of DNA-destroying carcinogens were created together with the amino acids, and in far larger proportions?


RE: I wish it were true, but...
By MrBungle123 on 1/15/2009 2:58:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Except, those self assembled polymers did not form a living (growing, reproducing, metabolizing) system. Not to mention that the delta G for two amino acids linking together is positive, meaning it's a non-spontaneous process and requires energy input to continue. Life is a bit more complex than crystallization (self assembly in an ordered pattern).


what does that have to do with anything? Every plantetary body in the solar system has energy being put into it by the sun. Every biological process is the result of chemistry so why is it so unreasonable to assume that should the chemistry be correct that life will come from it? life after all is nothing more than really complex chemistry is it not?


RE: I wish it were true, but...
By clovell on 1/15/2009 3:52:35 PM , Rating: 2
No. You're talking about molecular and atomic assembly here, whichinvolve quantum mechanics. Odds are assuredly involved, and more to your point, conditional on the environment. Whether we can ever know them precisely, is another matter.


RE: I wish it were true, but...
By sld on 1/19/2009 11:53:33 AM , Rating: 2
Which experiments?


RE: I wish it were true, but...
By PatriotAge on 1/21/2009 4:35:42 PM , Rating: 2
Let's hope it's intelligent life. There isn't much of it here among the voting public..


RE: I wish it were true, but...
By ShaolinSoccer on 1/15/2009 5:08:17 AM , Rating: 2
This is probably irrelevant but what about the probes that were sent in the 70's? Could they have carried bacteria to Mars and this bacteria could've spread? I don't think 30 years would be long enough to spread all over the planet. So ya, you're probably right. A meteor from Earth carried them to Mars. It wouldn't surprise me if that happened. I have seen some interesting pictures of the surface of Mars scanned from above. Nothing that proves there ever was a civilization but it did make me scratch my head.


RE: I wish it were true, but...
By lco45 on 1/15/2009 5:58:19 AM , Rating: 2
They were sterilized, but it is not inconceivable that they carried bacteria.

Ideally samples could be returned. They might not even have DNA if they were non-Earth origin.

Luke


RE: I wish it were true, but...
By phxfreddy on 1/15/2009 9:07:08 AM , Rating: 2
Note methane regions are overlapping water regions. This is very high probability life and not geology. It will be DNA based also.


RE: I wish it were true, but...
By geddarkstorm on 1/15/2009 2:08:14 PM , Rating: 2
Incorrect. Water vapor is produced in abundance by many geological processes, such as volcanoes (water vapor is the most abundant gas emitted by a volcano), that also produce methane at the same time. Since it is believed that most Martian water is under the surface, any process that released methane into the air would likely release water vapor. The fact they coincide does not tip the scales in favor of life in any way.


By MrPoletski on 2/9/2009 9:09:45 AM , Rating: 2
At least not as much as green plumes of exhaust gas caused by incoming invasion craft.


By ShaolinSoccer on 1/16/2009 12:26:51 AM , Rating: 2
Why would it be DNA based? Are you trying to say that it's impossible for other ways of life to start? I'm sort of an agnostic when it comes to wondering whether or not there is life out there. It wouldn't surprise me if there isn't and yet, at the same time, it wouldn't surprise me if there are millions or billions of planets out there with life and Earth is the only planet with DNA based lifeforms. I'm gonna stick to my guns and say "I really don't know" but I do hope there is life outside our solar system. Then this big friggin universe won't feel so empty...


RE: I wish it were true, but...
By PKmjolnir on 1/15/2009 6:14:18 AM , Rating: 5
Considering mars smaller size and now desolate state it would've cooled and reached an optimum for life before the earth.

Couple that with lower gravity(and thus escape velocity) and my money's on mars being struck and spreading life to earth, not the other way around.

Of course, in keeping with the tradition of extremely self centric ideas that we humans hold so very dear I guess i'll have to put half of my money on life being started because my future time machine malfunctioned and permanently deposited(will deposit?) me in a prebiotic ocean. So we started ourselfs trough some mechanism of time paradox and causality violation, thus making us infinitely unique in all possible universes.


RE: I wish it were true, but...
By Shmak on 1/15/2009 12:28:20 PM , Rating: 2
Somebody else is really trying hard for that top spot in NASA...


RE: I wish it were true, but...
By ice456789 on 1/15/2009 8:22:03 AM , Rating: 5
I would disagree with your panspermia theory. There are a few doubts you need to address to convince me.

Large objects don't just gently graze the Earth and then land softly on Mars. When a large object strikes the Earth it is like a nuclear bomb going off, destroying everything nearby. So any life that travelled from the Earth to Mars essentially survived 2 uber nuclear explosions and the cold vacuum of space in between. It would be like shooting a gun at a wasps nest and expecting a new wasps nest to start up wherever the bullet lands.
Also I've read that water on Mars (required for life to thrive) was present in the first 600 to 700 million years. There was no life on Earth during that time. If there were indeed microbes that created methane on Mars then they were there long before there was life on Earth. Perhaps you can correct that if I'm wrong, I only read it on a couple websites.
Finally, you'd have to explain the physics of an object from Earth landing on Mars. Perhaps you are saying that a colossal impact caused 'shrapnel' to fly out and go to Mars? I find that dubious. If the particles were small, they would be restrained by gravity and leave the atmosphere. If they were large they would not achieve the velocity required to exit orbit. The Moon would swallow them up if anything. And if we're blowing life into space, wouldn't we find remnants of it on the Moon? There would be 'dead life' all over the moon.

If you're really one for panspermia, perhaps the most likely explanation is that perhaps some asteroid with microbes on it split in two, one hit Earth and one hit Mars. Although isn't it just easier to say that when Mars had liquid water life formed just like it did on Earth?


RE: I wish it were true, but...
By lco45 on 1/15/2009 7:12:23 PM , Rating: 2
No, panspermia is still way more likely that life simultaneously occurring on two neighboring planets.

Large objects can graze the Earth, not necessarily gently. The moon itself is thought to have been bashed from the earth by a large impact.

Shrapnel is perfectly feasible, it is speed not size that determines if an object escapes a gravitational field.

Personally my dream scenario is that life is found on Mars, and it is different from life (current and ancient) on Earth. But I think that's unfortunately one of the less likely scenarios.

Luke


RE: I wish it were true, but...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/15/09, Rating: 0
RE: I wish it were true, but...
By ice456789 on 1/15/2009 8:41:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Shrapnel is perfectly feasible, it is speed not size that determines if an object escapes a gravitational field.

I'm not a scientist, but I was under the impression that the force of gravity is proportional to mass and inversely proportional to distance. So the bigger the object, the stronger the gravitational pull and the smaller the possibility of escaping the gravitational field. A large item would have to be moving much faster than a small item to escape gravity. Again, someone tell me if I'm wrong.
quote:
Large objects can graze the Earth, not necessarily gently. The moon itself is thought to have been bashed from the earth by a large impact.
Unless you are saying that you think Mars was at one time a piece of the Earth, then you still haven't convinced me. The fact that the moon is in orbit is evidence for my assertion, is it not? You can't really build a case for an object entering the atmosphere, touching the ground, then lifting off again and leaving orbit. The energy required is beyond comprehension. Either the object would slam into the Earth, or it would skip off the atmosphere. Either way it would not be bringing life with it on its journey.


RE: I wish it were true, but...
By Lugaidster on 1/15/2009 10:27:25 PM , Rating: 2
This is a classic question in high school, what object hits the floor first if dropped from the same height (ignoring air friction) a cannon ball or a feather, the answer is that both hit the floor at the same time. This is because the acceleration is constant (g = 9.8 m/s^2).

Here is question: if the sun were to suddenly transform into a black hole maintaining its mass; what would happen to the earth? would we be swallowed by the black hole?


RE: I wish it were true, but...
By CyborgTMT on 1/16/2009 5:27:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Here is question: if the sun were to suddenly transform into a black hole maintaining its mass; what would happen to the earth? would we be swallowed by the black hole?


The short answer - yes. I could give the long answer as to why it would eventually be pulled in but it's 5:30 AM my time and I'm going to bed :)

In the end we'd only have about 8 minutes to care before the Earth started to freeze anyway.


RE: I wish it were true, but...
By FITCamaro on 1/16/2009 7:48:32 AM , Rating: 2
Actually no we wouldn't. If the black hole has the exact same mass as the Sun, its gravitational effect would be the same on the Earth. Thus Earth would be able to maintain its orbit just as it does now.

But yes you're correct. It wouldn't matter because we'd be dead.


RE: I wish it were true, but...
By CyborgTMT on 1/17/2009 4:37:04 AM , Rating: 2
You're missing one part of the scenario, the void left by the sun if it's instantly changed into a black hole. Even though space is thought of as empty, it's not. As the sun suddenly shrinks to what would amount to a small black hole the void created would put a bit of pull on near by objects. It wouldn't be a large amount of force but would be enough to effect the orbital path of near by objects. I doubt the force would be enough to reach Earth, but it would be more than enough to tug a bit on Mercury as well as effecting any comets and such in it's vicinity. As these are pulled in the mass of the black hole will slowly increase. Eventually as more and more matter is pulled in it will become strong enough to effect Earth directly.


RE: I wish it were true, but...
By FITCamaro on 1/16/2009 7:42:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also I've read that water on Mars (required for life to thrive) was present in the first 600 to 700 million years


Life as we know it. It is not impossible that life can exist without water.


RE: I wish it were true, but...
By Aeonic on 1/15/2009 9:56:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Given the odds of life occurring on a planet next door, surely the odds are tilted way in favour of geology.


There are no odds yet. We've only explored one planet, the Earth. So far we're at 100%. But that's not enough data to go by to give any kind of odds either way. "Life" could be quite common.

My fingers are crossed too.


RE: I wish it were true, but...
By Gzus666 on 1/15/2009 10:10:10 AM , Rating: 2
As are mine, how cool would it be to be a part of the time when life is discovered elsewhere? It would be one of the great things of our time. I would equate it to that feeling when they saw them land on the moon for the first time.


RE: I wish it were true, but...
By stirfry213 on 1/15/2009 1:46:23 PM , Rating: 2
Discovering life on another celestial body would be the greatest discovery of all history, possible the greatest thing that will happen for all future.


RE: I wish it were true, but...
By dj LiTh on 1/15/2009 1:51:12 PM , Rating: 2
You've been playing the game spore a bit much.

But, didnt they already find dead microbes in the soil years ago?


RE: I wish it were true, but...
By geddarkstorm on 1/15/2009 2:04:57 PM , Rating: 2
No, they found a possible, but unproven fossil of a bacterium (maybe) in an asteroid from Mars that landed on Earth.


RE: I wish it were true, but...
By nugundam93 on 1/20/2009 7:16:49 PM , Rating: 2
funny, i kept thinking of John Carpenter's "Ghosts of Mars".


RE: I wish it were true, but...
By FPP on 1/15/2009 1:52:45 PM , Rating: 1
..in other words, they don't really know. WELL..THIS AND GLOBAL WARMING...


RE: I wish it were true, but...
By androticus on 1/19/2009 1:38:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Fingers crossed, this would be so sweet.

Actually, it would be immensely depressing. If life is indeed likely, and further assuming that the eventual emergence of intelligent life is even likely a fraction of the time, then it should be tremendously surprising that we don't see any evidence of intelligent life, particularly radio transmissions. This could imply that all supposedly intelligent societies eventually wipe themselves out... The alternative, that life is extremely rare, gives us hope...


What would this do to religion?
By ussfletcher on 1/15/2009 12:08:16 PM , Rating: 2
How do you think the findings of life on another planet would affect our religions?
Mainstream religions would probably be completely unable to deny that some of the basis for their beliefs are perhaps not true.
Maybe, just maybe Scientology would get a second look from many people.

-- I am in no way a supporter of scientology so don't go flaming me




RE: What would this do to religion?
By Suntan on 1/15/2009 3:17:54 PM , Rating: 3
Some people will always need religion of some form or another. Over time they will adapt their beliefs to “explain” it.

-Suntan


RE: What would this do to religion?
By ShaolinSoccer on 1/16/2009 12:50:33 AM , Rating: 2
There are two types of religious people. One type is someone who believes only in what their book says and nothing more. The other type is someone who believes in God and nothing can change that. Not even finding life all through the universe. A book is a book. God is God. It's two totally different things. Even if a person who doesn't read a single religious book on this planet CAN believe in God. A logical brain has a funny way of making that happen...


RE: What would this do to religion?
By Gzus666 on 1/16/2009 9:45:38 AM , Rating: 2
I would say an ignorant logical brain has a way of doing that. Any god belief that I have seen materialize is usually based on their lack of understanding in something and they fill the lack of understanding with a deity. It is the classic, "How did this happen? It must have been god", or the God Gap as it is known.

To believe in something without reason is considered insane by everyone until it hits religion, then only some think that way. It is a defense mechanism that religious people use to keep the belief alive at all costs. It is natural though, I don't fault the person, I fault the indoctrination of religion and perpetuation of ignorance.


RE: What would this do to religion?
By Shmak on 1/16/2009 12:12:56 PM , Rating: 2
There is a logical reason to believe in God. There is evidence that the human brain is somewhat structured to produce religious thoughts and feelings. You probably knew this. How else can 90% of the human population belong to some sort of religion? Much of the early research was conducted by this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Newberg

Regardless of how you interpret this, you cannot fault someone for their belief if our brains seem to be hardwired for this kind of thing. Its perfectly logical. Whether the believers are right or wrong is irrelevant.


RE: What would this do to religion?
By Gzus666 on 1/16/2009 12:34:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is a logical reason to believe in God. There is evidence that the human brain is somewhat structured to produce religious thoughts and feelings. You probably knew this. How else can 90% of the human population belong to some sort of religion? Much of the early research was conducted by this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Newberg


I think you are misinterpreting things. There is still no logical reason as logic can be reduced down to mathematical terms. While I completely agree that there are parts of the brain that can assist with knee jerk reactions to believe in magic and all that crap immediately, it is the logic that sways away from it.

I have yet to see anyone that presents any belief to have any solid argument for the belief. It comes down to not questioning it. We live in a society that considers talking about it to be rude and improper. This basically shields the thoughts from the real world and even logical people can then compartmentalize them away from logic.

Also, as for the percentage, I really don't buy that 90% of people believe in a god, but we will use it none the less. People are herd type animals. As a group we love to be included and be involved.

If a group of people believe in something, then most will blindly join in, especially when it is presented as something so fantastic. Each major area in the world tends to have their own version of this. You will find plenty of people in those societies that believe in it and some that don't. If is the easiest to just go along with what people all believe as it requires no thought. People love that, we are like electricity, path of least resistance.

As our intelligence continues to rise as a people (our IQs raise as an entire species pretty steadily) we will eventually get too curious to just accept what others say is true. Not to be a jerk to the religious, but you can draw a correlation between intelligence and believing in a god and it is pretty obvious. When you start adding the major sciences into the mix, the number of atheists is astonishing and clearly does not reflect the rest of society.


RE: What would this do to religion?
By maven81 on 1/16/2009 12:35:04 PM , Rating: 2
I would say they are wired to seek something to believe in, not to seek religion. Huge difference.
Our brains are also hardwired to suppress individual thoughts and side with the consensus opinions apparently. How does that make it logical, or a good thing?


RE: What would this do to religion?
By Shmak on 1/16/2009 2:54:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would say they are wired to seek something to believe in, not to seek religion. Huge difference. Our brains are also hardwired to suppress individual thoughts and side with the consensus opinions apparently. How does that make it logical, or a good thing?


As much as logic is being lauded here, I would think that you could use it to make the connection between :

A) lots of people wired to believe in something and
B) lots of people believing in something.

Therefore, the argument that belief is illogical fails.


RE: What would this do to religion?
By Gzus666 on 1/16/2009 3:00:53 PM , Rating: 2
Oversimplification. Seriously, you seem to be doing this a lot. I explained the link in my post above to people going with the group. That is why you have a hand full of psycho religious nuts, then you have your wishy washy religious people who just kinda believe to belong. The ones who either default to the "spiritual" or "I believe some of the bible" and things of this nature. Clearly they don't hold true to their "belief" cause they barely understand or agree with it anyway. It is a group mentality and a way to belong.

To hold an inconclusive single study as the argument for being wired to believe is silly. It is a good study, but needs more to follow it.


By androticus on 1/19/2009 1:42:57 PM , Rating: 2
Oh my god (irony intended) -- if people can deny evolution and believe that the world was created 6,000 years ago, they can believe anything. The notion that "God" created the heavens and earth, complete with fossils etc. intact, is utterly unfalsifiable and thus compatible with anything that is ever discovered.

Religion is prehistoric irrational nonsense that is a blight of chronic embarrassment on mankind. In movies like The Matrix, I Robot, and Terminator, I consider the robots to be the heroes. ;)


Administration support?
By plowak on 1/15/2009 5:25:53 AM , Rating: 5
Anyone find it curious that the suggestion that there might be life on Mars follows closely upon the new administration's suggestion that NASA may not be seeing the funding it's seen in the past?

2 + 2 = 5 (for larger values of 2)




RE: Administration support?
By Ratinator on 1/15/2009 10:59:24 AM , Rating: 2
Read Deception Point by Dan Brown and one would wonder. However, I am going to lean towards NASA's side on this one.


RE: Administration support?
By kellehair on 1/15/2009 11:14:48 AM , Rating: 5
Better yet don't read that pile of crap.


RE: Administration support?
By SnakeBlitzken on 1/15/2009 5:32:11 PM , Rating: 2
Oh come on! That was a fun read if a bit unplausible. If all books followed laws of common sense and reason, they'd all be boring.


RE: Administration support?
By cochy on 1/15/2009 11:12:03 AM , Rating: 2
Bingo.

In any case, it's been announced many times in the past that there might be life on Mars.

This is nothing new.


Suspicious
By kontorotsui on 1/15/2009 6:04:54 AM , Rating: 2
Notice the timing of this:

quote:
NASA... will likely have to announce layoffs in the immediate future
NASA... will likely have to announce layoffs in the immediate future

and this:

quote:
the U.S. space agency may be ready to announce alien microbes living below the Martian soil


Why does this suspiciously looks like an announcement to stop the layoffs? Regardless if it is true or not?




RE: Suspicious
By jrollins006 on 1/15/2009 12:56:40 PM , Rating: 2
As great of a possibility that is, im still kinda hoping that they really are finding life. Just think maybe we can find martian bacteria that can help fight cancer aids or any other incurrable(sp?) diseases


RE: Suspicious
By Yames on 1/15/2009 3:55:46 PM , Rating: 2
The martian bacteria are waiting for their ride to Earth so they can multiply and conquer.


RE: Suspicious
By Gzus666 on 1/15/2009 4:25:05 PM , Rating: 2
AND STEAL OUR WHITE WOMENS!!! (this was a joke, so please don't anyone take this serious)


RE: Suspicious
By kontorotsui on 1/15/2009 8:26:50 PM , Rating: 2
If that happens we're going to have the same fate as the aliens from War of the Worlds: being defeated by bacteria.


RE: Suspicious
By ShaolinSoccer on 1/16/2009 12:45:29 AM , Rating: 2
If NASA is holding back on data like this just for the sake of making sure they will continue to get funds, doesn't that make NASA really really smart? I mean, think about it. And it doesn't necessarily have to do anything with greed. NASA needs all this money and support to keep on doing what they been doing. sigh... politics... politics...


lame
By Chiisuchianu on 1/15/2009 12:20:27 PM , Rating: 2
i want fossils or actual findings, not a guess based on the scenario




RE: lame
By jrollins006 on 1/15/2009 1:00:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
i want fossils or actual findings, not a guess based on the scenario


Well correct me if im wrong, but isnt most of our scientific data based on scenarios, via computer generated or what


RE: lame
By geddarkstorm on 1/15/2009 2:11:15 PM , Rating: 2
No way. That's not science, that's speculation to produce hypotheses from, which are then tested to see if they are valid or not (the testing is what science is).


Go go MSL!
By Jedi2155 on 1/15/2009 3:55:09 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder if they're going to update/add any instruments on the upcoming Mars Science Laboratory to help further study this possibility.




RE: Go go MSL!
By fri2219 on 1/15/09, Rating: 0
RE: Go go MSL!
By Jedi2155 on 1/16/2009 2:57:11 AM , Rating: 2
""space expert" Nick Pope"
By yxalitis on 1/15/2009 4:25:43 AM , Rating: 2
Well, as long as "experts" are referred to, I'm happy!
Next up.."research has shown.."




RE: ""space expert" Nick Pope"
By RoberTx on 1/15/2009 10:44:17 PM , Rating: 2
He is a space expert if it's the same Nick Pope I'm thinking about. He is also a world recognized leader in unexplained phenomena. I don't think he has actually explained anything yet but I do believe he is way ahead of everybody else on explaining unexplainable thangs. He's connected to the illegal alien problem also.

http://www.nickpope.net/


Correct me if I'm wrong....
By FangedRabbit on 1/15/2009 10:13:28 AM , Rating: 2
But haven't they found comets containing large amounts of methane? Oh, and ice. Comet crashes into mars, produces water and methane. Occam's razor at work.




By marvdmartian on 1/15/2009 10:25:07 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, but that's not nearly as cool as standing up in front of a bunch of reporters and stating, " MARTIANS FART!!! " lol


My little theory
By HollyDOL on 1/15/2009 12:27:39 PM , Rating: 2
First of all I'd like to say I have very little knowledge in this kind of science, so take this with a light approach.

1.
Well, it's said that our Moon is very unusual for inner circle planents and that it is rather suited for gas giants type of planets.

2.
Moon is leaving Earth gravity field... Slowly, but for sure. How long is it since it was created? How close would that had to be that time?

3.
Let's say Moon could be some lost asteroid that might have looooong ago passed around Mars, somehow pickup few microbes there, create Mount Olympus and land the load on Earth causing Mars to feck off it's building water-based climate...

Okay, end of sci-fi, but I can't see that as SO unrealistic, but then again I have no education in this part of science...




RE: My little theory
By maven81 on 1/15/2009 5:24:51 PM , Rating: 2
it's said that our Moon is very unusual for inner circle planents and that it is rather suited for gas giants type of planets.

We used to think so, but then found that Pluto has a moon that if I remember correctly is half it's size, and even some asteroids have tiny moons. Mars also has two moons though they are tiny and will supposedly crash into it at some point.

Moon is leaving Earth gravity field... Slowly, but for sure. How long is it since it was created? How close would that had to be that time?

I believe the most accepted current theory is that the earth was struck by a mars size object billions of years ago, which destroyed both, and the debris formed the current earth/moon system. So I guess at one point both would have been 1 cloud of debris (as close as you can get!)

Let's say Moon could be some lost asteroid that might have looooong ago passed around Mars, somehow pickup few microbes there, create Mount Olympus and land the load on Earth causing Mars to feck off it's building water-based climate...

I don't quite get you... Olympus Mons is a volcano. You're saying the moon smashed into Mars then wound up here? How would any bacteria survive such an impact?
Besides this isn't necessary... we've found meteorites that came from Mars directly!


Oh No!
By gigahertz20 on 1/15/09, Rating: 0
RE: Oh No!
By lco45 on 1/15/2009 4:21:58 AM , Rating: 2
Watched it just yesterday. What a classic.

Luke


Prediction.....
By Funksultan on 1/15/2009 7:53:30 AM , Rating: 2
No life on mars, but a new methane-creation method will be discovered.

Next, the big 3 find new life with new methane hybrids!

If only Apple could have some part in it, it'd be the Dailytech trifecta! (these 3 topics have generated a LOT of headlines here)




Who is this John Murray......
By phxfreddy on 1/15/2009 9:09:16 AM , Rating: 2
... and how does he talk to "the sun" ?

Because I need answers and did not know I could consult the sun. I occassionally talk with the moon but never get an answer.




Heh heh heh..
By RoberTx on 1/15/2009 11:33:16 AM , Rating: 2
So martians have a flatulence issue?




By Dreifort on 1/15/2009 11:35:07 AM , Rating: 2
Where is the ka-boom? There was supposed to be a really large ka-boom?

Nevertheless, no earth creature is going to contaminate my atmosphere.




By ZachDontScare on 1/15/2009 1:32:22 PM , Rating: 2
If there is life on Mars, give up any hopes you might have that humans will some day colonize the planet. The environmentalists will see to it that few, if any, humans ever step foot on the planet for fear of disrupting the habitat. You'll start seeing/hearing enviromentalists give slogans like 'we've already ruined one planet, lets not ruin another'.




who cares?
By eckre on 1/15/2009 5:24:59 PM , Rating: 2
Who the crap cares, I don't care if there are little animals running around there, it still doesn't and won't affect my life at all whatsoever.




The Fools!
By RoberTx on 1/15/2009 10:35:42 PM , Rating: 2
They are already drawing up plans for drilling for life on Mars. The fools will let the beast go free. It will devour us and all of our beef jerky. Beware of Poomceebutt, cousin of Godzilla, 2wice removed.




On odds
By General Disturbance on 1/16/2009 8:38:10 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry if this was covered in the multitude of posts here, at work and don't have time to read them all.

The "odds" for life on Mars might be a lot higher than one might expect, given that there is life on Earth. Panspermia may be an odds-favoring mechanism, however, we also know that the building blocks for life most likely came from the interstellar medium that created our solar system in the first place. So, if life developed on Earth because it had the right initial ingredients (and conditions), then it becomes likely that if Mars had the right initial conditions (which it did) and the right in initial ingredients (which it did), then life should have had a good chance of developing there also.

So really the only unknown in this is the predisposition for the development of life GIVEN the correct conditions...this is the most useful stat we can gain from this. If Mars has (or had) life and it is genetically distinct from Earth life, which means it is not from panspermia origins, then that must mean that the chemistry of life has a VERY high likelihood of developing wherever it can, and therefore wherever there COULD be life, there is a high probability of there being life. Meaning the universe could be teeming with life wherever the conditions allow.
On the other hand, if there is either a) no life on Mars, or b) life on Mars (past or present) that IS genetically similar to Earth life, then we still will have only ONE instance of the development of unique life chemistry, and we will still be no further in answering how often life should arise around the universe, and I think that is the big question we want answered.




By Sceptic on 1/19/2009 12:31:15 PM , Rating: 2
Mars is devoid of life; nothing indicates that it might survive there. This methane is a simple gas combining carbon and hydrogen, nothing fancy. NASA is in no position to claim life exists on Mars and it almost certainly won't risk its reputation by claiming that. But it will wave the word 'life' around suggestively because it needs to hype itself to survive.




Only certain when it is certain
By androticus on 1/19/2009 1:35:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
British space expert Nick Pope [said], "What could be more profound than to know it's not just out there? "We've really only scratched the surface -- it's an absolute certainty that there is life out there and we are not alone."

What utter rubbish. An "absolute desire" and "absolute certainty" are not the same thing. Extraterrestrial life will only be an "absolute certainty" once its existence has been absolutely demonstrated. We just don't know what are the odds of life forming and what are the odds of a planet existing that is able to sustain conditions over a long enough period for life to emerge. Until astronomers or exobiologists can provide better evidence, the jury is still out.




huh?
By MrPoletski on 2/9/2009 9:01:39 AM , Rating: 2
What happened to all the comments here? I thought there were loads last time I checked...

anyway, I welcome our new martian overlords




By fri2219 on 1/15/2009 3:58:57 AM , Rating: 1
That the 2.5 billion over-budget, two years late, Mars Science Lab is going to sent to a sterile, so-called safe, landing spot instead of the source of the methane emissions with the tell-tale C14/C12 signatures.

Good job, Griffin, your genius will be sorely missed. At least we'll always have Paris.




No Life on Mars
By pwnsweet on 1/15/09, Rating: -1
RE: No Life on Mars
By lco45 on 1/15/2009 4:49:51 AM , Rating: 2
Any chance of giving the reasoning behind that rather bold statement?


RE: No Life on Mars
By MrPoletski on 1/15/2009 4:57:01 AM , Rating: 2
The chances of anything coming from mars, are a million to one, he said.


RE: No Life on Mars
By lco45 on 1/15/2009 5:51:11 AM , Rating: 2
OK, I'll pay that.


RE: No Life on Mars
By MrPoletski on 1/15/2009 8:47:10 AM , Rating: 2
The chances of anneeeething coming from mars, are a million to one... but still.... THEY COME!

DUN DUN DAAA
DUN DUN DAAA
DUN DUN DAAA
DUN DOM DARR
DOM-DUM, DOM-DUM, DOM-DUM-DOM-DUM-DOM-DUMMMM

weee-oooorrrr wee-orrrr weeee-oorrrrrrr


RE: No Life on Mars
By MrPoletski on 1/21/2009 11:38:46 AM , Rating: 2
wow did nobody get that reference at all?!?!

Just a handful of men, we'll start all over again!


RE: No Life on Mars
By Ausdrake on 1/15/2009 4:56:08 AM , Rating: 2
Sure there isn't.

The Earth is also thousands and thousands of years old, you can tell by looking at the bones of a fossilized Jesus. This is also fact.

Also Mountain Dew is the best drink ever.

In all seriousness I hope they find something on that red dustball, It would be an amazing discovery. Suddenly it will be entirely possible for there to be other life out there.

Unless of course life on Mars was an accident and we just got sent here via comet, but that's no fun.


RE: No Life on Mars
By pwnsweet on 1/15/09, Rating: -1
RE: No Life on Mars
By MrPoletski on 1/15/2009 8:49:54 AM , Rating: 2
how do you know there is no life on mars?

you've been there? service at the local pub was terrible?


RE: No Life on Mars
By Jacerie on 1/15/2009 7:42:32 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, wait... is it the Christian nut jobs creeping into the discussion? Are you afraid for your fragile little paradigm?


RE: No Life on Mars
By Bateluer on 1/15/2009 8:48:01 AM , Rating: 2
Well, the discovery of life on a celestial body other than Earth pretty much relagates most Judeo-Christian and Muslim creation stories to mythology. Ironically, where they belong. Sadly, it would take an announcement of this magnitude to convince people, and there'd still be some hold outs.


RE: No Life on Mars
By lifeblood on 1/15/09, Rating: 0
RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/15/2009 9:55:24 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Religion has a critical role in defining morality


No, it doesn't. To assert such a thing is ludicrous. People can and are just as moral without religion. Plenty of religious people are immoral with religion, it plays no role other than consolidating our natural instincts and learned morality over time.

If you want to use the bible as morality, then we should have slaves, beat women and children. It also defines how you can beat your slave, how much to charge for your apparent property, etc. Yes, these are wonderful "moral" things the bible defines, what a great book.


RE: No Life on Mars
By Schrag4 on 1/15/2009 11:27:28 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, rather than drag out the lessons on beating, we consolidated them into one sermon (wife, child, and slave beating) last Sunday at our church. Good stuff. </sarcasm>

Seriously, is that what you think Christians study?

To be less serious, though, it reminds me of the Simpsons quote from Reverend Lovejoy on the episode 'Homer the Heretic': "Have you ever actually read this thing? Technically we're not allowed to go to the bathroom."


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/15/2009 11:52:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Seriously, is that what you think Christians study?


No, they ignore it as it is now looked down on. Like many things to keep the facade alive, they overlook passages all the time when they are no longer accepted in the culture they are trying to take over. I have a feeling the anti-homosexual rhetoric in the bible will soon be overlooked more and more as they get more rights and are accepted by our culture.

Whether they choose to study it nor not, it is still there, black and white. If you discount part of a text, it becomes very hard to justify your continued assertion that the rest is correct.


RE: No Life on Mars
By Schrag4 on 1/15/2009 12:57:23 PM , Rating: 2
Just about every Christian recognizes many of the 'laws' in the Bible (mostly the Old Testament) as being man-made laws, specific to a given culture at a specific time, and even Jesus himself criticized religious leaders of the time for trying to enforce those laws. Christianity (as in 'Jesus Christ'-ianity) obviously doesn't recognize a lot of these, such as the law that you can't spit on the sabath because your spit mixes with dirt to form clay (which apparently was construed as 'work').

You don't sound like you know a lot about this subject you speak so passionately about...


RE: No Life on Mars
By maven81 on 1/15/2009 1:51:41 PM , Rating: 1
Whoa... Did you just say that Jesus criticized people for trying to enforce the laws written in the bible... which wasn't written until after his death? Did he travel back in time? And you accuse other people of not knowing what they are talking about?!

And you just completely ignored his point about religious people conveniently ignoring laws in their own holy book (huge chunks of which are said to be the word of god by the way).


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/15/2009 2:18:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just about every Christian recognizes many of the 'laws' in the Bible (mostly the Old Testament) as being man-made laws


Really? How did they come to such a conclusion? Clearly not reasoning or they would ignore all of the bible. Just about every? Did you do a poll? Half this country doesn't believe in DNA evidence and thinks the world is 6000 years old and you expect me to buy that they somehow all have come to this conclusion reasonably?

quote:
Jesus himself criticized religious leaders of the time for trying to enforce those laws. Christianity (as in 'Jesus Christ'-ianity) obviously doesn't recognize a lot of these, such as the law that you can't spit on the sabath because your spit mixes with dirt to form clay (which apparently was construed as 'work').


Haven't read all the lovely things the new testament tells about have you? I will leave you to your ignorance as it clearly bolsters whatever belief you hold.


RE: No Life on Mars
By Schrag4 on 1/15/2009 4:31:02 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, well, apparently YOU did a poll to come up with your 'half this country' remark. You obviously have a view of what Christians believe that differs greatly from what most probably do believe. I can't really speak for others (as you do), but your statements tend to lump all people from one (or any for that matter) religion into the same group, and that's just nothing like reality. People of faith vary in their beliefs just as much as people with no faith. We're all human, after all...


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/15/2009 4:42:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ok, well, apparently YOU did a poll to come up with your 'half this country' remark.


I didn't, someone else did for me.

quote:
You obviously have a view of what Christians believe that differs greatly from what most probably do believe.


Probably?

quote:
People of faith vary in their beliefs just as much as people with no faith. We're all human, after all...


Agreed, if it does not apply to you, then no need to assume it does. I find that the guilty ones tend to be the quickest to respond, otherwise there would be no point to defend.


RE: No Life on Mars
By ShaolinSoccer on 1/16/2009 1:34:50 AM , Rating: 2
And what exactly are you defending? If God does not exist, that means your life is temporary and meaningless. That means you can do whatever it is you wanna do, right? The only thing stopping you from doing anything you want to do is human laws and the fear of death since that would basically cut your fun off in an instant. You're not fooling anyone (or at least not me). You're obviously very religious in the satanic religion. Even if you deny it, lying is a trademark for people like you. You'll never be rational or logical because your hatred for God is so deep. Can you look back into your past and find the seed that was planted that started this hatred? I have more respect for agnostics and athiests than I will ever have for people like you...

The funny thing is the majority of all athiests I have ever spoken to are really agnostic. They just like to call themselves athiests for some odd reason...


RE: No Life on Mars
By maven81 on 1/16/2009 9:52:10 AM , Rating: 2
What do you mean if God doesn't exist life is meaningless? It has as much meaning as you get out of it. It is the religious people that believe life is meaningless because all they ever talk about is the afterlife. Think your life is horrible? Don't bother fixing it, all will be great in the afterlife they say.


RE: No Life on Mars
By FITCamaro on 1/16/2009 7:53:38 AM , Rating: 1
Just because over half of the US is Christian doesn't mean all Christians believe the world is only 6000 years old. My parents are devout Catholics but they believe in evolution. They just think it was god that started life in the first place (believe this is called intelligent design now?).

That statement is also the extent of my personal religious beliefs. Something, somewhere, sometime had to start all this. What that is, where it is, or when it happened I don't know. Nor does it bother me. The only chance we have at ever finding out is if there's an afterlife. I'll worry about that when I die.


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/16/2009 10:34:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just because over half of the US is Christian doesn't mean all Christians believe the world is only 6000 years old.


Understood, it was a poll done that directly asked people how old they think the earth is. My mother for instance, I would not doubt she believes this crap, she is pretty much as closed minded and non-logical as they come.

I think the point shouldn't be how many believe it, it is that at least some of them do, that is a terrifying thought. All polls have to be taken with a grain of salt, as they cannot poll every person obviously. It still leads to a reasonable percentage at least that believe it and that is scary.

quote:
That statement is also the extent of my personal religious beliefs. Something, somewhere, sometime had to start all this.


That is not really reserved as a religious belief as science seeks to find this as well. Also it depends on what you mean by "this". If you mean the existence of everything in the base sense, technically it didn't have to start or doesn't have to end. Infinite is a VERY hard concept for any of us to grasp, but it is entirely possible for there to have not been a beginning or an end to the universe. There is technically no reason it had to begin or end nor is there any real reason to say certainly it did.

This all gets very theoretical, but logically it is a bold statement to say it had to begin somewhere. Now if you are just talking about how things exist and have existed for our concept of time, sure. Big bang theory sets to explain this of course and seems to do a good job of answering these things. I believe it was Stephen Hawking who said (and I'm paraphrasing here) it wouldn't matter if something did happen before the big bang, because it would be completely immeasurable. The point is the Big Bang would have canceled out any previous evidence of what happened before, so we can't know, we can only know what is after that initial expansion.


RE: No Life on Mars
By clovell on 1/15/2009 4:48:26 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, the belief is that the laws given in the books of Moses were given to the Jewish people only, and that belief is pretty well confirmed by the text. That's why they're pretty much disregard in modern Christianity, a largely gentile religion.

It's not so much a matter of convenience as it is of context.


RE: No Life on Mars
By Reclaimer77 on 1/15/2009 8:45:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You don't sound like you know a lot about this subject you speak so passionately about...


Lol and you are just now figuring this out ? It's Gzus !


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/16/2009 9:57:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Lol and you are just now figuring this out ? It's Gzus !


Says the ultimate maker of bold assertions without a shred of evidence?


RE: No Life on Mars
By Tsuwamono on 1/15/2009 12:51:28 PM , Rating: 2
Usama Bin Laden

Adolf Hitler

King Arthur

Those are people who were Immoral WITH religion.


RE: No Life on Mars
By clovell on 1/15/2009 4:39:42 PM , Rating: 2
> If you want to use the bible as morality, then we should have slaves, beat women and children. It also defines how you can beat your slave, how much to charge for your apparent property, etc. Yes, these are wonderful "moral" things the bible defines, what a great book.

If you take it, in its entirety, literally.

> No, it doesn't. To assert such a thing is ludicrous. People can and are just as moral without religion. Plenty of religious people are immoral with religion, it plays no role other than consolidating our natural instincts and learned morality over time.

True. I think you'll find that, for the very religious, their religion does, in fact, play a critical role in defining morality for them. As you said, it serves a consolidary purpose over time.


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/15/2009 4:58:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you take it, in its entirety, literally.


Is there another way to take a book presented as ultimate fact and the word of a god? Do you take physics books figuratively? What of history books, are those figurative as well? You are twisting the book like so many other apologists to keep the belief alive in the face of contradicting facts and morals.

quote:
True. I think you'll find that, for the very religious, their religion does, in fact, play a critical role in defining morality for them. As you said, it serves a consolidary purpose over time.


They like to say it does, but in reality the book and the religion itself doesn't promote anything solid and the moral system is ingrained in them through time and just who they are. Mainly the reason why no religious person shares the same morals and values short of the basic ones almost everyone shares, religious or otherwise.

As for the consolidary purpose, that is propagated beyond religion, it is something passed down from parents and some of the basic nature of society. Religion isn't required for it, it is merely how it ended up for certain religious texts.


RE: No Life on Mars
By clovell on 1/15/2009 5:17:18 PM , Rating: 2
> Is there another way to take a book presented as ultimate fact and the word of a god?

No, but I don't present it that way. Fundamentalists do, but I don't think it's fair to lump all religious folks in with them. that's just how I see it, though.

> Do you take physics books figuratively?

No, but I do allow for context for books like Euclid's Elements and Newton's Principia - though modern science shows them to be incomplete and lacking, they still hold valuable information, and should be read with an open mind.

> What of history books, are those figurative as well?

Hahahahah. You know some of the best history is contained in art, poetry, and prose.

>You are twisting the book like so many other apologists to keep the belief alive in the face of contradicting facts and morals.

Nope, I'm just keeping an open mind.

> As for the consolidary purpose, that is propagated beyond religion, it is something passed down from parents and some of the basic nature of society. Religion isn't required for it, it is merely how it ended up for certain religious texts.

Yes, but from an sociological standpoint, religion is the vehicle most frequently used by families in the past to pass down those values.


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/15/2009 5:41:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, but I don't present it that way. Fundamentalists do, but I don't think it's fair to lump all religious folks in with them. that's just how I see it, though.


It presents itself that way, I have no need for anyone else to do so.

quote:
No, but I do allow for context for books like Euclid's Elements and Newton's Principia - though modern science shows them to be incomplete and lacking, they still hold valuable information, and should be read with an open mind.


Of course it contains valuable information, because it can be shown to be true. On the other hand the bible has none of these joys. Science doesn't need your acknowledgment to exist, belief does, go figure.

quote:
Hahahahah. You know some of the best history is contained in art, poetry, and prose.


Yet those are not books or something you use for historical accuracy...

quote:
Nope, I'm just keeping an open mind.


If that is what you want to call it, I call it the apologist standpoint as do many others, including the people that do it.

quote:
Yes, but from an sociological standpoint, religion is the vehicle most frequently used by families in the past to pass down those values.


Only for our culture as it stands, before religion it was passed down through tribes and early civilizations. Take away the religion and the morals still pass.


RE: No Life on Mars
By Shmak on 1/16/2009 2:09:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Of course it contains valuable information, because it can be shown to be true. On the other hand the bible has none of these joys. Science doesn't need your acknowledgment to exist, belief does, go figure.


Maybe if you would actually look up these works Gzus, you'll find that the theses presented in them are not accurate . Useful, sure. In the same way that the bible is morally useful, and not necessarily accurate.


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/16/2009 2:29:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maybe if you would actually look up these works Gzus, you'll find that the theses presented in them are not accurate .


The laws of motion are not accurate? I'm sorry, I don't get your assertion here.

quote:
Useful, sure. In the same way that the bible is morally useful, and not necessarily accurate.


Explain something moral in the bible that wasn't in existence before, I will show you the hate and moral hypocrisy that follows. It is as useful for morals as Run Dog Run is for mathematical principals.


RE: No Life on Mars
By drmo on 1/15/2009 9:40:14 AM , Rating: 2
I fail to see how this statement would be true. Don't fall into the trap of becoming as dogmatic and fundamentalist in your atheist/agnostic beliefs as some are in in their religious ones. Religion deals primarily with spiritual and moral questions, not creation ones. The failure to mention (in scripture) specifically that Mars has life is not not going to bother any Christian/Muslim/etc. if it turns out to be true. Intelligent life could be a problem, but scriptures (Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Muslim) state that there are intelligent life forms other than ours, so that might be a problem either.


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/15/2009 10:04:50 AM , Rating: 3
While I agree, no one can say with absolute certainty that a god doesn't exist in the same way we can't say Bigfoot or unicorns don't or haven't existed, I must disagree with your defining everything as a belief. Theism is the belief in a god, the "a" in atheist just means you do not have a belief in theism. Lack of belief is not a belief.

I do not have to sit and define myself as a person who does not believe in unicorns, aliens, Bigfoot, Santa, or any of these things cause it is silly to believe in anything without proof. The only reason we have to define ourselves as atheists is because religion has taken over and it is now considered odd not to believe in certain things. Everyone begins atheistic(without theistic beliefs), that is natural. It is only after being indoctrinated with some belief that one becomes a theist of any sort.

If no one presented any religion to someone, they will most likely have none. If they encounter something they can't explain, they may lay it on magic, as this is merely how we tend to define something we don't understand purely out of ignorance. Now if the person was properly educated, they would understand that just cause you can't define something now, doesn't mean you should automatically jump to conclusions. I don't understand why jumping to conclusions is looked down on for most things, yet when talking about religion is is condoned.


RE: No Life on Mars
By Xerloq on 1/15/2009 10:32:53 AM , Rating: 2
Um, wrong. Quick Greek/Latin lesson (not to be pedantic =), but the word athieism can be broken down into the following parts:
a = no/not
theo = god/deity
ism = belief system

It means "belief in no god." The suffix generally modifies the root and prefix as a unit.

agnostic is the word your looking for:

a = no/not
gnosis = knowledge
ic = (makes the word an adjective or noun)

this means "no knowledge" (and commonly "without respect") used to refer to religion.

Have fun!


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/15/2009 11:29:53 AM , Rating: 1
Fair enough, I was mainly trying to refer to atheist, but you know how that works out.

Unfortunately it is not really a proper defining term. Whether someone calls it a belief or no, there is no belief in not believing in something. In the same way you don't have to not believe in magic, it is something you must only believe in, the lack of belief is not a belief in itself it is merely the natural stance until given the idea.


RE: No Life on Mars
By MrBlastman on 1/15/09, Rating: -1
RE: No Life on Mars
By MrBlastman on 1/15/2009 12:27:04 PM , Rating: 2
(SP) Hypocracy = hypocrisy

:-\


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/15/2009 12:41:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Did you know that the US Court System ruled Atheism as a religion? Shocking!


Of no issue in reality, they rule plenty of crazy crap, they are merely human. To hold them to some height of ultimate truth is insane.

As for your silliness about reinforcing beliefs, there is no belief in atheism. As I stated, you do not have to tell people you don't believe in Santa, because you are not challenged about it.

If someone came up and tried to stuff Bigfoot down your throat, most likely you and many others would talk about the reason it makes no sense to subscribe to such a belief. If it was something ingrained into your day to day life and you didn't buy it, the fight would be even more common. It is not a belief, no matter what word game parallels you try to draw.

quote:
What a complete fallacy. To believe in nothing is to believe in something so hence, it is a belief.


Who said we all believe in nothing? I merely acknowledge there is no proof to accept the statement of a god of any sorts, if the proof is brought forth, the acknowledgment will be made.

quote:
If Atheists believe in nothing, why do they need a book, someone else, or a group to tell them that what they believe is real? Sounds like a church to me.


People write books about physics and math, are these beliefs? Must you belief in math for it to be true? These are things that are talked about and reinforced all the time, but they are not beliefs. Your parallels are silly apologetic crap and it is getting quite old. Provide evidence for your claims of a god or don't preach them as anything more than fairy tales and in the same category as any possibility.


RE: No Life on Mars
By MrBlastman on 1/15/2009 12:49:52 PM , Rating: 2
Where in my post did I make one claim towards the existence of a God? I don't see one.

I know plenty of Atheists who do not feel whole unless they are around other Atheists that believe the same thing to reassure their beliefs. If you want to believe in nothing, that is fine; do not, however, go around calling religion a hyprocrisy, making fun of churches and organized religion when you are in fact partaking in something similar.

I don't see what the big deal is. Believe in what you want to believe and don't try to shove it down other people's throat.

That is a pretty simple but effective concept, right?


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/15/2009 2:56:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Where in my post did I make one claim towards the existence of a God? I don't see one.


It was implied by talking about atheists as outsides or others without including yourself. Even if you are a Buddhist, you are an atheist as you are a non-theist in that case. Since you did not put yourself in the group of atheists, you would have to have some belief in a god, no matter how that god is defined. If that is not what you desired it to mean, then I will treat it as such when you make this statement.

quote:
I know plenty of Atheists who do not feel whole unless they are around other Atheists that believe the same thing to reassure their beliefs. If you want to believe in nothing, that is fine; do not, however, go around calling religion a hyprocrisy, making fun of churches and organized religion when you are in fact partaking in something similar.


I find it odd that you can somehow speak for how they feel, but I have a feeling you are making it up. We aren't partaking in something similar, we merely speak of a lack of proof. Buddhists are atheists as they have no belief in god. If the religious did not push their beliefs on everything in the first place, you would not see the uprising. There is only so much you can take before you get sick of someone pressing their beliefs on you, as religious love to do through many pro religious laws that happen so often and adding of "god" to everything under the sun.

So, to see a backlash should be no surprise. Go back enough time and this crap didn't exist and no one had to deal with it. After a few thousand years of it, we must respond or be destined for them to run things religiously as they have been historically the loudest group.

Religion does not exist to make fun of others nor do atheists exist for that same reason. Are the basic ideals behind religion actually something most would like? Sure, but many just can't see lying to themselves any longer. Hell, Santa, The Tooth Fairy, Bigfoot, little green men all seem like they would be awesome to have around, but diluting ourselves to that point just doesn't seem worth it. To bend your perception of reality so heavily around something that has no proof is truly the meaning of delusional.


RE: No Life on Mars
By sgw2n5 on 1/15/2009 12:41:58 PM , Rating: 5
I don't believe that rainbow farting unicorns exist, let alone that they are a deity. I just flat don't believe that they exist.

Does this make me an a-rainbowfartingunicornist? Is this a religion now?

Only an idiot thinks that suspension of belief on supernatural matters is a "religion."


RE: No Life on Mars
By clovell on 1/15/2009 4:45:19 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I think we call those people agnostic, though.

Everyonbody calm down and use your words.


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/15/2009 5:09:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah, I think we call those people agnostic, though. Everyonbody calm down and use your words.


He was, the poster above him though set the tensioned tone. I'm not sure why people get mad when someone responds back to their anger with anger. Set a soft tone and you will usually see one back.

Not believing in something is just flat out not believing in something. People like coined terms to help twist something. When it comes down to it though, the reason anyone doesn't believe in god is the same reason you don't believe in Zeus or Ra, it is just one step further by not accepting your god without proof as well.


RE: No Life on Mars
By clovell on 1/15/2009 5:21:20 PM , Rating: 2
> I'm not sure why people get mad when someone responds back to their anger with anger. Set a soft tone and you will usually see one back.

Quite true, but I'm sure we've all done a bit of it, myself included.


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/15/2009 5:46:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Quite true, but I'm sure we've all done a bit of it, myself included.


The angry tone, sure, but getting mad when someone responds the same way appropriately, I can't think of a time I have done that personally. If someone shares the tone I give, I am not going to get into a huff over it.


RE: No Life on Mars
By jrollins006 on 1/15/2009 12:40:52 PM , Rating: 2
well i thought that athiest didnt believe in religion, but isnt religion a group of people with a common belief? so a group of athiest would be a religious group? im not sure, just going out on a limb.

-mike


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/15/2009 12:45:29 PM , Rating: 2
No, it is the lack of belief in a god. The basics are that unless something is provided with proof or at least evidence, then belief in it is silly. This stems true for any belief such as Elvis still being alive.

Generalizations are cute and all and you can play any word games you wish, the fact still remains there is no evidence or proof of a god, so to subscribe to it is just as silly, if not more so since there is at least more evidence of it, Bigfoot. They have grainy videos, footprints and hair of the supposed creature, religion has a book.


RE: No Life on Mars
By jrollins006 on 1/15/2009 12:52:18 PM , Rating: 2
Once again im not an expert or anything, but isnt it in jewish history somewhere that they killed a man for doing mircacles, please dont bash me or anything because im not sure, im asking

-mike


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/15/2009 12:59:23 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry if I come off abrasive, I don't mean to be it is just how I am sometimes. It is not in anything solid beyond the bible. Oddly enough, even Roman history doesn't mention it and they were supposed to be the ones to kill him. Granted there were some vague comments here and there about a guy by the name, but it can't be verified or even pinned to him.

Another fun fact, Roman crosses used for crucifixion were upper case T rather than lower case t for ease of use and stability reasons.


RE: No Life on Mars
By clovell on 1/15/2009 4:51:23 PM , Rating: 2
Josephus.


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/15/2009 5:03:10 PM , Rating: 2
Josephus was shown to be fake and added by the church later on. Theists still argue it, but it just isn't truth. Sorry, no dice.


RE: No Life on Mars
By clovell on 1/15/2009 5:07:45 PM , Rating: 2
Fake?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus#Literature_a...

If so, It surely doesn't seem to be a decided fact.


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/15/2009 5:23:08 PM , Rating: 2
I find it odd that the bust looks completely different from the painting of the "supposed" man. I can't sit here and discount the entire thing as a fallacy, they have found some things based on the text to be true, but clearly it has too many contradictions to be true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

While the man most likely existed, they consider the Jesus passages to be works of early religious scribes. Too much evidence stacking up to the contrary, once again the faith shines through.


RE: No Life on Mars
By Xerloq on 1/15/09, Rating: -1
RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/15/2009 11:44:21 AM , Rating: 4
While I am fine with you believing whatever you wish, I would prefer you not present religion as a theory or try to compare it to one, as they have absolutely NOTHING in common.

Religion is nothing like a theory, as it has no evidence or stances other than a book. I can write a book about Einstein being a magic demigod who flew about and shot lasers from his eyes and gave eternal life to the worshipers. Now, it may seem crazy, but assuming there wasn't any contradicting texts to say otherwise and history wasn't as properly documented as it really is (remember, this is hypothetical) then there is a good chance groups of people would accept this as fact at some point. They might even build a religion on it (Scientology anyone?).

The point is it is an insult to every physicist to make such a statement. These are men who work their whole life towards understanding and to compare it to something that has stifled and continues to try to stifle such understanding is insanity.

You can believe in whatever you wish, but when you start making these sort of statements, I can't let it go unchallenged. Please remember that because of the people who pursued such fields rather than accept a random, unproven belief system as fact is the reason we enjoy all these wonderful advancements of science.

Also, if you want to get technical, your religion has lots of problems with life on other planets, evolution and science in general. Please remember the bible spoke of unicorns and women flying about with wings "like a stork" as I remember it. The bible contradicts science and history in many ways, like the age of the Universe and the Earth, the order of creation of the bodies in our solar system, the flood, the ark, Jesus even existing, quotes they stole from other people (The Golden Rule is from the Greeks, The teach a man to fish quote is from Confucius) and the list could truly go on, but I believe that should be enough for anyone.


RE: No Life on Mars
By drmo on 1/15/2009 12:18:31 PM , Rating: 2
"Please remember the bible spoke of unicorns and women flying about with wings "like a stork" as I remember it. "

I don't know of unicorns (just one-horned goats according to the Chicago museum), but the "like a stork" was in a Bible vision, so if you have a dream and record it, does that make it crazy?

"The bible contradicts science and history in many ways, like the age of the Universe and the Earth, the order of creation of the bodies in our solar system,"

'In the beginning' could be billions or trillions of years ago.

the flood, the ark,

Don't know for sure (much like a lot of archaeology), but floods happen and the Black Sea area was flooded about the same time as the Jewish scriptures suggest. I think you are complaining about fundamentalist, literal interpretations that say the entire Earth (which noone knew the size of) was flooded.

"Jesus even existing, quotes they stole from other people (The Golden Rule is from the Greeks, The teach a man to fish quote is from Confucius) and the list could truly go on, but I believe that should be enough for anyone. "

If something is true, it doesn't matter where or who it came from. Scripture never claims that the "golden rule" was first presented in scripture. The teach a man quote is not in the Bible, but is used by conservatives. Although it would be interesting if the Jews traveled to China and brought it back with them....
As for Jesus, there are many people in history that we cannot prove existed today, and more a nomad, without a home, no money, and was killed early, it seems unlikely he would leave much of a mark.


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/15/2009 12:34:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't know of unicorns (just one-horned goats according to the Chicago museum), but the "like a stork" was in a Bible vision, so if you have a dream and record it, does that make it crazy?


Could you show where it says it was a dream?

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?grpId=-1&art...

Few on unicorns.

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2003/20030526.htm

There is a two for one deal, sacrifice and satyrs.

quote:
'In the beginning' could be billions or trillions of years ago.


I have a feeling you haven't read about the bible very much.

http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/...

This explains it easier than I can and cuts back on my post's girth. The bible also clearly states that he created man and the earth and the sun all within the same 6 day period, only out of order to which we know to be true.

quote:
Don't know for sure (much like a lot of archaeology), but floods happen and the Black Sea area was flooded about the same time as the Jewish scriptures suggest. I think you are complaining about fundamentalist, literal interpretations that say the entire Earth (which noone knew the size of) was flooded.


Book says it was the entire world, if it were god's word, it would be perfect. In reality it is wrong, so you cannot trust the text.

quote:
As for Jesus, there are many people in history that we cannot prove existed today, and more a nomad, without a home, no money, and was killed early, it seems unlikely he would leave much of a mark.


I would agree for the most part, but when you are talking of a man who did miracles of the quoted nature and had such a following and amazing life, you would think at least one other book would bring him up. But, no other book that can be legitimized even specifies the man, only other religious texts (Koran) talk about him. Then take into account the book was written decades if not centuries after the man was said to exist, then you get quite the hearsay problem.


RE: No Life on Mars
By drmo on 1/15/2009 1:00:30 PM , Rating: 2
The KJV is a notoriously inaccurate translation of the Bible, and other translations do not use "unicorn". Again, though, a one-horned animal like the rhinoceros or goat is a possible source of the legends.

I said it was a "vision", which if you read Zechariah, it seems to be so in context (with a flurry of different scenes and images that are explained as symbolic representations...)

The satyr reference says it was an idol (a man-made image, not something real...)

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." has no specific time given. The use of days in following verses can be interpreted to be a non-specific reference to periods of "creation" (like "the Cambrian era"). One could probably find thousands of science articles that have subsequently been disproved, but does that mean you reject all science?

Regardless, the beginning of the discussion was that the Bible never says "Mars has no life", which was the initial assertion.


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/15/2009 2:35:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The KJV is a notoriously inaccurate translation of the Bible, and other translations do not use "unicorn". Again, though, a one-horned animal like the rhinoceros or goat is a possible source of the legends.


Inaccurate yet somehow propagated? Seems to me like if it is possible that inaccuracies can happen and you admit it, then the whole thing could just as easily be a fallacy. It would seem the "god" involved in this has no issue with his "word" being misrepresented, there by providing no one with a clear stance to build the belief off.

quote:
I said it was a "vision", which if you read Zechariah, it seems to be so in context (with a flurry of different scenes and images that are explained as symbolic representations...)


When you say things like "seem", it becomes too abstract to make a distinction one way or another. This brings any kind of "god" figure making it into question. Why such ambiguity in a text made to teach?

quote:
The satyr reference says it was an idol (a man-made image, not something real...)


You are making your own assertion here based on nothing more than what you think it was meant to mean. Idols were portrayed most of the time in the book as real things, like the golden calf.

quote:
One could probably find thousands of science articles that have subsequently been disproved, but does that mean you reject all science?


Science doesn't seek to disprove anything. It is merely a mechanism to explain things as they happen. Whether science is right or wrong has no affect on the things actually happening. If I say the world is square, doesn't matter if the entire world agrees, it is still spherical. It is a change in understanding, not a desire to sit and prove things wrong. If something is accepted as scientific fact and refuted, it is only because of some other discovery that may have been overlooked at the time.

For all we know we discover the multiverse theory to be true and find out other universes don't work under the same laws ours does. Does this means all science is now stupid and wrong? No, it worked for the level of understanding that was had at the time.

quote:
Regardless, the beginning of the discussion was that the Bible never says "Mars has no life", which was the initial assertion.


I don't believe that was the assertion made, but if that is what he actually said, please take that conversation to him as I never made this assertion.


RE: No Life on Mars
By maven81 on 1/15/2009 2:37:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." has no specific time given. The use of days in following verses can be interpreted to be a non-specific reference to periods of "creation" (like "the Cambrian era").


No, but there is a clear sequence of events... earth, then mysteriously a rotating earth that has a day and night without the sun. Then comes grass and trees still without a sun (say goodbye to photosynthesis. Then the sun and moon get created at the same time. Then all the different species of everything appear at the same time... fish AND birds, when we have evidence that live formed in the oceans first. Need one go on?
You'd have a point if it got one or two things wrong. But this description gets everything wrong!


RE: No Life on Mars
By drmo on 1/15/2009 1:03:34 PM , Rating: 2
Oh yes, I forgot: "entire world" could be an expression to mean the entire land in which one lived (in that day this may have been the entire world for many). After all, we still say "sunrise", even though we know it is the rotation of the earth to allow us to see the sun, not the sun actually rising.


RE: No Life on Mars
By gitserved on 1/16/2009 10:31:57 PM , Rating: 2
Quote:
no other book that can be legitimized even specifies the man, only other religious texts (Koran) talk about him.
You do know that books were not common back then. Relious texts were rare as well. Monks devoted their lives to handwriting holy manuscripts that generally only the wealthy owned copies of.


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/17/2009 12:27:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You do know that books were not common back then. Relious texts were rare as well. Monks devoted their lives to handwriting holy manuscripts that generally only the wealthy owned copies of.


Hey Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Ancient China, Sumeria, we apparently don't have enough text from that time, so who knows if you existed?

This is apologetic crap, the best this proves is we still don't have proof of his existence even with claims of the most amazing things in the history of our existence. Seems odd they wouldn't show up in more books, don't you think?


RE: No Life on Mars
By gitserved on 1/17/2009 11:48:47 AM , Rating: 2
Seriously though were you that kid in high school with the black makeup and painted his fingernails black? Do you still nail squirels to your kitchen table?
Back to topic.....we have birth certificates and death certificates. Not to mention the agencies that keep those records on file.

quote:
Seems odd they wouldn't show up in more books, don't you think?

Have you read any of the Bible past the the first line of Genesis? Aside from the moral lessons taught in the old testament, there are books that contain prophecies about the comming of the anointed one. When and where he would be born his life and death. The man whose name is commonly translated as Jesus was the only person in history to fulfill all of them. They were written before his time and lasted until the present. Besides that the Roman inquisition
took place, and who knows how much information was destroyed to suppress the true message of Jesus. If you recall people were killed for translating the Bible into other languages. A simple case of someone feeling that knowledge was a threat to their position. Happens more often then you might think.


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/17/2009 6:22:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Seriously though were you that kid in high school with the black makeup and painted his fingernails black? Do you still nail squirels to your kitchen table? Back to topic.....we have birth certificates and death certificates. Not to mention the agencies that keep those records on file.


Huh? Are you having a conversation with what you think I said?

quote:
Aside from the moral lessons taught in the old testament, there are books that contain prophecies about the comming of the anointed one.


Do you mean moral lessons like slavery, sacrifice and violence towards women and children?

As for prophecies, you will need to quote every prophecy and prove it came true or you are making assumptions and baseless assertions.

If you are admitting the divine text were possibly suppressed, then how do you know any of this is real? A god would allow his word to be skewed? This is supposed to be a teaching book for the word of god, yet he lets it be destroyed? Also the Roman Inquisition was of the 16th century (Catholic).

Everything you are presenting is nothing more than assertion with no verifiable sources. You have clearly stated by your own admission that the religion is based on something that is completely unverifiable and possibly skewed heavily by other people through time, so your only source is hearsay 70 or so years after "Jesus" supposedly lived. You literally have no basis for any of the claims of religion as you stated. You can't even verify that your texts are real, so you have successfully refuted the entire religion as unverifiable.


RE: No Life on Mars
By gitserved on 1/18/2009 3:19:57 AM , Rating: 2
First off I want the exact scrpiptural reference to where wife beating is said to be okay. As far as slavery, the Mosaic law was written for the the people of Israel. You were supposed to teach your slave about God, and if you beat your slave and hurt him you were supposed to let him go. How is that immoral? Second, yes his word is skewed because humans who translated his words are not perfect. Although, you have to admit the message is the same. Peace, love, honesty, cleanliness and soforth. The sacrifices were to atone for sin. A prelude to what Jesus did. After him there was no need for an animal sacrifice. People were only sacrificed by pagans the of the day.
When the inquisition occured is of little or no importance other than the fact that it contributed to the apostacy that Jesus said would come after his death. Jesus died because he was a threat to the establishment. The same way modern leaders kill their opposition. Read the writings of the apostles. The pharasies tried their best to make him say something incorect. Every time he gave a beautiful response. They hated it. Read closely, he was guilty of nothing. He was a problem to those in charge that could not be solved. Except by putting him to death. Strange how a nobody and a few people could start something with worldwide impact.
The apostles feared for their lives when he was killed. The reason they went on teaching was because he appeared to them and showed them they did not need to fear death.
Even if there were other books or scrolls about Jesus that were destroyed, the writings about him in Bible give his account because they survived. Someone thought they were important enough to keep safe. The original hebrew, greek, and aramaic scriptures are there, if you can read those languages.
As far as a verifiable source, you want a letter from Ceaser saying "Yeah, we did it. Jesus on a stick. Wanna slice? Come do something." You are not going to get something that obvious. Although some prophecies and their fullfillment I can provide.
Born of the tribe of Judah. Genesis 49:10 fullfilled in Luke 3:23-33
Decended from King David. Isaiah 9:7 fullfilled in Matthew 1:1, 6-17
Declared by God to be his son. Psalm 2:7 fullfilled in Matthew 3:17
Not believed in. Isaiah 53:1 fullfilled in John 12:37, 38
Betrayed by a close associate. Psalm 41:9 fullfilled in John 13:18, 21-30
Betrayed for 30 silver pieces. Zechariah 11:12 fullfilled in Matthew 26:14-16
None of his bones were broken. Psalm 34:20 fullfilled in John 19:33, 36
There are more prophecies regarding Jesus, but one Bible prophecy that is true to this day is that the city of Babylon will be destroyed and never be inhabited again. To this day it remains in ruins from when it was destroyed thousands of years ago. If you want, I can tell you where to find that in the Bible.



RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/19/2009 11:23:51 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm
http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm
http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm
http://new.vawnet.org/category/Main_Doc.php?docid=...

Please only read the passages, the rest of it could be construed as biased and I understand this. As for the messages being peace and love, that varies minute to minute it seems in that wonderful book. It would appear "god" was quite bipolar.

As for the rest of your post, baseless assertions. You cannot use the bible to prove the bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Babylon_Ruins_Ma...

As for your insanity of believing that Babylon was never inhabited again, it is, just under a different name thanks to Mr. Hussein. Also they plan on turning it into a strip mall tourist spot now that he is gone, ha. I included the nice picture of the ruins after they were rebuilt which is in direct contradiction to the "prophecy". There is a reason apologetics are laughed at, cause they don't have a leg to stand on.


RE: No Life on Mars
By gitserved on 1/19/2009 9:13:10 PM , Rating: 1
How come I can't use the Bible to prove the Bible? You certainly try to use it to disprove itself?

Slavery was common then just as it was in the U.S. until about 100 years ago. The point is, these were slaves that at least had some sort of rules protecting them. Way more civil than modern man. He was given options and a set timeline for release. The hostage reference is nonsense. If the master provided him with a wife she was still the masters property. If he had his own wife, they could leave together. Simple as that.

The first instance of rape is what it is. The bias shows because the last verse of judges states that "during this time there was no king in Isreal. Doing what was right in his own eyes is what each one was accustomed to." Bottom line there was no advocation of this conduct, just a record of the account. People try to use the stories of people commiting bad acts as some sort of flaw in the Bible. I don't know of any other religious text that openly admits the mistakes of the people. These were meant for teaching, and historical value. If anything, most religions would try to cover it up and act like it didn't happen.

The rest of that stuff is stupid. Logic has to play a part somewhere. One of thoes rape things the the guy has to marry the girl he raped, and pay 50 silver pieces to her father. And? Another says stone the married woman and the man who rapes her. Why? Because it clearly says "she didn't scream for help, and he violated his neighbors wife." So she must have liked it. She gets stoned for it.

These were ancient people. Laws were simple and to the point. Their system was not as intricate as our modern day, corrupt, shop for a judge, judicial system. I really don't get where they were trying to take the article. What were they proving other than, people that are considered less civilized than us endulged in behavior that is not openly approved of today? Point being that the old testament has a lot to do with the ancient world. The stories and laws were for that time period. For us to read, not to judge them, but to rationalize their situation and see the differences in our civilizations. The new testament and the words of Jesus are what we are expected to model our lives by.

Babylon, well that is slippery because Saddam wanted to rebuild, and you saw what happened to him. Does anyone actually live there. You know, are people raising children conducting their daily lives there. Doubt it. A few organized stones in the middle of some sand. Nothing monumental. When it becomes a great CITY again, then I will admit being wrong. Till then I'm right. HA HA HARDY HAR HAR. How are you even sure those guys are Babylon? That could be a WMD. They wouldn't know.

And what the heck is an apologetic? Some new religious fad? I didn't sign their roster.


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/20/2009 9:53:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How come I can't use the Bible to prove the Bible? You certainly try to use it to disprove itself?


Are you serious? You can't be this dumb, it just isn't possible. I use the bible's statements and compare them to reality to show fallacies in those statements. You use a the book to prove the same book. This would be the equivalent of a book citing itself as a reference for a statement it made in the same book. If this can't be proven, it is nothing more than an assertion backed by an assertion. Another example, this is like when you ask a question and someone says "because I said so". It is a meaningless assertion with no evidence or proof to back it up.

The rest is just you justifying stuff you know doesn't make sense, but you must protect that dogma at all costs. Good luck my friend, I hope you will clear your mind a bit one day. Come to the side with evidence, it is quite a bit more sane.


RE: No Life on Mars
By gitserved on 1/20/2009 10:35:45 AM , Rating: 2
The question is, are you out of your mind? It is not just one book. It contains 66 seperate books. You ever read a trade paperback? It contains many books in one volume. The books were written during different time periods, by different people. Or did you forget?

By telling me I don't make sense, you are not saying much. Prove my statements false. If you have evidence. You must have run out of misquoted propaganda, all taken out of context I might add. Your side is as bad as the media when I comes to telling the whole truth. You use only the bits and pieces needed to support your claims. When someone exposes that fact to you, they are all or a sudden not making sense and protecting dogma. You wish. It is what it is. The sane one is the one that does not play on the common man's ignorance to gain approval. Submit factual evidence to support your claims. You can't do it because if you read and understand the Bible you would not be debating it's authenticity. But I guess reading the whole thing I too bothersome for you people. Just chop it up and say it is not cohesive. That works until someone comes along and tells you how dumb you are for doing it. Research on your own. Those Bible bashing websites are useless, because it helps to read the whole book before you make any kind of critical analysis of its contents. Tell me I am wrong, and you would be lying.

If they contained the truth, there would be no need for a bias. The same way scientists present facts to prove claims, factual evidence, not smoke and mirrors are required to support your unintelligent opinions.


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/20/2009 3:09:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The question is, are you out of your mind? It is not just one book. It contains 66 seperate books. You ever read a trade paperback? It contains many books in one volume. The books were written during different time periods, by different people. Or did you forget?


This game I see. It is still one book, the bible. Also you cannot use books to prove other books, you must use evidence or facts to prove things.

quote:
By telling me I don't make sense, you are not saying much. Prove my statements false. If you have evidence.


You don't understand burden of proof do you? I don't need to prove your claims false, you need to prove your claims true. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Let me know when you prove god, then we can talk. I really don't know why I argue this other silliness with you other than entertainment.

So, lets get to it, prove to me and the world that your god is real. If you cannot do so, you are making an assertion of something that cannot be proven and must be spoke of as such. You must provide tangible proof. It cannot be a book as books do not prove things. It must be a clear link to proof. Enjoy!


RE: No Life on Mars
By gitserved on 1/21/2009 3:58:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
you cannot use books to prove other books, you must use evidence or facts to prove things.


Let's see. Last time I checked generally all facts are stored in a book somewhere. Books are used for reference. According to you, not only is the Bible not worthy of our trust, but neither are history books or any form of documentation. Using your logic, the history of the world can't be proven. Yet archealogical digs have unearthed the remains of numerous biblical cities. Civilizations like the Persians, Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians have events in their histories that were recorded in texts that became part of the Bible. I disagree with the whole you can't prove a book with a book comment. The written word is all that is left when there is mass destruction. You might find some art or glyphs. Someone might live to tell a story to someone else. The point is people die. Then people like you come and say prove they lived a certain way. Play in the dirt all you want and do your CSI bit. In the end, someone's written acount of their life beats speculation any day.

quote:
prove to me and the world that your god is real


Saying that there is no God means accepting that good and evil really don't exist. Why have laws? After all, this would mean Hitler and MLK were both right. They just had different opinions. Does that make sense to you? Maybe a little oversimplified.

I am curious though. Besides all of your religion bashing, what do you really stand for? It is obvious you will fall for almost anything. Plain and simple you think God is a myth. Well the truth is many Christian religions worship a god that is a myth. Some people know the truth about the creator of the universe. Point being you still can't disproove the facts I presented. You can not thoroughly disproove his existence either.You can not even begin to understand him. You would rather remain ignorant and stonewall.


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/22/2009 9:52:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Last time I checked generally all facts are stored in a book somewhere. Books are used for reference.


No, facts are there whether they are written down or not. Also if it is a fact, it can be tested, something the very base claim of god lacks.

quote:
Saying that there is no God means accepting that good and evil really don't exist. Why have laws?


Stop changing the subject, prove your "god" or you have an assertion of a deity and nothing more, which makes your god no more right than anyone else's all the way back through history. All I want to hear is you either provide proof for your claim of a god, or you have to admit that every god from Apollo to Zeus and every crazy thing people say is possible.

This includes unicorns, leprechauns, Bigfoot, Nessy, Santa, The Tooth Fairy and so on cannot be proven fake, so you cannot say they are not real. If your bold assertion is so true, then so are the others. My point is none have evidence, so there is no reason to believe them.


RE: No Life on Mars
By gitserved on 1/22/2009 2:58:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, facts are there whether they are written down or not. Also if it is a fact, it can be tested, something the very base claim of god lacks.


There you go stonewalling again. How come there are exceptions to the rules you make up? Something as simple as the fact I wore a gray shirt yesterday. Could you explain how to test if this fact is true? If not, just respond with, "No, I do not know how test this fact."
The only way to offer proof or confirmation, is if I kept a record that I could look back at.

www.rationalchristianity.net/proof.html



RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/22/2009 9:48:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There you go stonewalling again. How come there are exceptions to the rules you make up? Something as simple as the fact I wore a gray shirt yesterday. Could you explain how to test if this fact is true? If not, just respond with, "No, I do not know how test this fact." The only way to offer proof or confirmation, is if I kept a record that I could look back at.


Stonewalling? What part of a fact is a fact no matter what a book says don't you understand? You take the stance of humans being the center of everything? If everyone in the world including all books say the world is flat, that doesn't mean it is true. The point is we have no affect on facts, we merely work to observe them. The flat Earth idea was clearly not grounded in any reality and had no logical evidence (sound familiar? *cough*god*cough*). Things in other books have easily found evidence, let me know when you find one real supernatural thing that can't be explained some other way in the bible. This means you would have to disprove every single possibility besides supernatural, so good luck.

As for the shirt, we could check pictures, check evidence of the shirt and see if it was worn recently then get it as close as possible to being truth. The point is there would be evidence you wore it yesterday like people saying you did, DNA on the shirt that is recent, it being dirty, etc. Nothing besides math can be proven, the highest something else can become is a theory. The problem is as your stupid apologetic link says you can't prove god to "freethinkers".

By this same vein, you could apply this to unicorns, magic, leprechauns, every god that has ever been conceived, etc. So how do you prove your god? As I stated, a god is possible to exist, but there is no evidence, so why believe? It is the same reason you don't believe in everything. Literally you would have to believe in everything unless it was directly proven wrong, which would entail so many things it would just get silly.

So, I pose this to you sir, why don't you believe in all things and not just religion? You would also have to believe in god's creator and his creator and so on, gets kinda stupid, don't you think?


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/22/2009 10:54:05 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RV46fsmx6E&feature...

Thought it would be good for you to watch the book refuted as well.


RE: No Life on Mars
By gitserved on 1/23/2009 12:37:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You take the stance of humans being the center of everything?


Nope. Humans are screwed up. They are not perfect. They kill eachother over topics like the one we are discussing. Given what I have learned from reading the Bible, God is basically a perfect being that can be looked to for guidance. The fact that I want to point out is that when you don't take the scriptures out of context and actually understand what is written, a vivid picture is painted. It all comes together. The proof you seek will ultimately be found when you die.

quote:
The flat Earth idea was clearly not grounded in any reality and had no logical evidence (sound familiar? *cough*god*cough*)


You are a funny guy. You should see the point now. The flat Earth idea was accepted until someone proved it wrong. Your "there is no God," and my "There is a God" arguments have to be proven one way or the other. There is no factual basis to support either theory. Or at least, that is accepted by the other side. You say......

quote:
a god is possible to exist, but there is no evidence, so why believe?


Well, because if there is one, you are *cough*screwed*cough* if you don't believe. You rely on your own logic and are limited to your own level of comprehension when it comes to understanding unknowns. Ways of understanding created by man. You believe humans are the center of everything, because you use their reasoning as the bottom line and justfication for your side. I believe God and his infinite wisdom is the center of everything.


RE: No Life on Mars
By HollyDOL on 1/15/2009 12:37:24 PM , Rating: 2
I'd also note it would be quite reasonable to realise the fact that even if there was god and gave pple 10 commandments he had to give it to them in a way they were understandable to them.

Bible was written by human again. And he had no Google that time to look up things he didn't understand. It might even be possible that Bible could use some update for the slightly increased understanding of pple these days compared to 2000 years ago.

And mainly I think Bible is and never was ment to be understood word by word, but more likely to provide people guidance between lines and teach them learn on the "faery tale" examples.


RE: No Life on Mars
By Curelom on 1/15/2009 12:49:51 PM , Rating: 2
Regarding Jesus stealing, are you referring to the apostles taking some corn from a field as they were passing through? If so it wasn't stealing. Back then it was the culture that wanderers were able to take some food when walking through fields. I suppose you could call it part of their welfare system.


RE: No Life on Mars
By Curelom on 1/15/2009 12:29:47 PM , Rating: 2
Nowhere in the bible does it say that there isn't life on other planets. Many (not all) Christians believe that "In the beginning" refers to the beginning of Earth not the beginning of the universe, nor does it state that the Earth is the center of the universe. Those were assumptions made by man, but is not contained in the holy writ. The Bible is reference on how to return to God. It is not a manual on how God created the Universe. The discovery of life on other planets, even intelligent life does not exclude the existence of a God.

If you are in such a hurry to dissprove "Christian nut jobs", it might be helpful if you learned a little more about them.


RE: No Life on Mars
By JediJeb on 1/15/2009 1:02:24 PM , Rating: 2
Similar to above, the Bible speaks of the infinate distance being from East to West, of which there is no end because the earth is a sphere, North and South are definate distances because of the polls. It also speaks of the Earth being suspended in nothingness, which would be space. There are other facts like this but I don't have then on hand at the moment. People of the Christian faith who were arrogant to believe they knew more than the one they believed in are the ones who prepetuated the false belief in a flat Earth and Earth centered universe. The same can be said for many scientific beliefs that were perpetuated like the belief that if someone traveled faster than the speed of sound it would kill them. That was believed by many scientists until someone actually traveled faster than sound.

When you actually study the Bible you find it confirms many more scientific beliefs than it contradicts. It is only people who want to be in charge of their universe that try to use it to make the universe fit their own beliefs by misquoting it.


RE: No Life on Mars
By maven81 on 1/15/2009 2:22:43 PM , Rating: 2
Let's take just one bit of Genesis shall we?

quote:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.


Just these two sentences are already dead wrong about several things... First the planet could not have formed "without form". If anything the opposite is true, it must have slowly coalesced into a sperical shape from a much rougher shape. Second, it most definitely could not have been in darkness because the sun formed before the earth. God doesn't even create the sun until later. Care to explain? And that's without bringing in the rest of it, like the fact that God doesn't create the stars until after he creates the earth (when we can easily see stars that are older then our entire solar system...)


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/15/2009 3:06:31 PM , Rating: 2
It is truly amazing how a few minutes of thought and some basic science knowledge can so easily refute a text that is supposedly "the word of god". If god truly did exist, would anyone worship such an obvious buffoon?


RE: No Life on Mars
By clovell on 1/15/2009 4:52:15 PM , Rating: 2
Do you feel better now?


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/15/2009 5:52:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you feel better now?


Do you? I'm sure if my stance on things were as abstract as humanly possible and just hide behind the lack of anything concrete in my beliefs, I would not feel so great. The Christian who basically believes in nothing Christian, at least not in a direct way. You sound like a deist who is taking the safe "Christian" stance so you aren't questioned on it.


RE: No Life on Mars
By Dreifort on 1/15/2009 3:32:56 PM , Rating: 2
For anyone who doesn't understand the Bible or how science relates to it...

The bible has no clear defined time-line. The whole notion of 7 days is not the 7 days me and you think of.

It says "In the beginning...". It doesn't say, *poof* there is a void.

If you listen to science, the earth was "without form" if you think about the theory of a mass of space debris clinging together to form a solid object. And science also says the sun formed at some point, it hasn't always been there. So science can actually justify the Genesis statements (Moses written word from his conversations with God - God had direct audible communication with select individuals in the Old Testament - unlike the spiritual context of communication developed in the New Testament with God/Christ).


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/15/2009 3:47:55 PM , Rating: 2
Very apologetic, it is clearly pointing out the beginning of time as 4000BC. It also clearly misrepresents the order in which the items in our solar system were formed. You can try to say 7th day was his day, but he was supposed to adhere their supposed calendar. Why no explanation of creating all the other galaxies and planets? We know how stars are made and form, why is god even needed in that equation? Evidence shows black form before galaxies, where is this in his creation?

Lets move in more, he claims to have created all the creatures together, life formed in the ocean first and that is a fact. He claims to have created woman from man from his rib, ignoring the idiocy of a god having to use parts from something else he made, why are men not missing a rib? Dinosaurs? Superbook forgets those apparently. What about the human ancestry? We have many fossils showing the transition of our species and crossing genetic paths with early apes.

It is a farce, it is supposed to be a book of god and he is made out to be omnipotent and omnipresent, why would he let this book with so many fallacies propagate?


RE: No Life on Mars
By clovell on 1/15/2009 5:04:04 PM , Rating: 2
> Very apologetic, it is clearly pointing out the beginning of time as 4000BC.

Clearly? Where?

> We have many fossils showing the transition of our species and crossing genetic paths with early apes.

Which is about as clear as your 4000 B.C. figure. Seriously, we can play these stereotypical games all day - there's nothing to gain by this and nothing to see.

Give it a rest.


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/15/2009 5:26:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Clearly? Where?


http://agards-bible-timeline.com/timeline_online.h...
http://www.abiblestudy.com/part1.html
http://www.konig.org/timeline.htm

quote:
Which is about as clear as your 4000 B.C. figure. Seriously, we can play these stereotypical games all day - there's nothing to gain by this and nothing to see.


Nothing to see by transition fossils? It seems science disagrees with you on this, but whatever you wish to believe sir, cause clearly no evidence or logic will sway you.


RE: No Life on Mars
By maven81 on 1/15/2009 5:01:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The bible has no clear defined time-line.


Ah, but it does! See the 7 days are actually irrelevant. You could argue that it wasn't 7 earth days, and that's fine.
But there's a clear sequence of events, on what came first, and what came second, and what came at the same time. A sequence that we know is not in the correct order. The sun could not have formed after the earth, nor could the stars older then the sun have been created after it.

Nor could you say that he just magically popped things into existance, unless he didn't create gravity until later... For example if I magically changed the sun into a binary system it would drastically change the gravitational forces in the solar system, and probably eject the earth out of here! Just like magically making all the continents appear at once would probably create one hell of a tsunami.

Sorry, but it's clear to me these are merely the words of primitive people desperately trying to understand the world around them. There's no way a god would give them such misleading information.


RE: No Life on Mars
By BrockSamson on 1/15/2009 9:02:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And science also says the sun formed at some point, it hasn't always been there. So science can actually justify the Genesis statements


Not contradicting something doesn't make it a justification...


RE: No Life on Mars
By gitserved on 1/16/2009 10:55:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

There is nothing wrong with that statement. An unstable volcanic earth (without form and void)....that would be vacant. An abundance of gasses and dusty debris in the air would not let light pass. Once the earth cooled and the debris settled light shone down. Pretty in line with science there. I would love to debunk any more "inconsistencies." Intelligence will prevail.


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/17/2009 12:23:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
TextAn unstable volcanic earth (without form and void)....that would be vacant.


How would a planet with volcanoes be formless? Even if it were gaseous like Jupiter, it would have a form as we can see.


RE: No Life on Mars
By gitserved on 1/17/2009 11:25:26 AM , Rating: 2
Not a planet with volcanoes, but an unstable molten mass. Try reading the definition of the word formless. "Lacking definite form or shape." Look at the way stars are formed. They begin with no definate shape. Just their components out in space, and over millions of years they go through different phases. Just like the earth did. The components were there. They were just unstable ant tthe surface was constantly changing? Now....do you want to try tht again?


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/17/2009 7:28:24 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_7dayc...

This at least keeps my post to a minimum while still pointing to the reasoning for the contradiction statements of the bible.

"2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

Let's start here. If the Earth was without form and a ball of molten mass as you put it, how is there water for god to move upon the face of? How is darkness upon the face of the deep if it is formless? When did darkness become something that can be "upon" something? It is the lack of light, so it cannot be upon anything. Semantics I know, but a deity of this nature should be able to make that distinction to keep out confusion or misconceptions.

As for the light portion, clearly if there was water, it was formed enough to support it and couldn't have been so clouded with dust as to not allow light to get through as long as the Sun was there. If the Sun wasn't there yet, as I'm sure was intended, then it was wrong.

As for the dividing of light and dark, you cannot divide light and dark, that is done naturally because one is the lack of the other as we have gone over.

" 16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."

He clearly said he had light well before he created stars as pointed to here. The Sun is a star yet he didn't create them till the 16th passage? Where was the original light from? This clearly points out to the order being wrong.

As for the day time, it is defined by the light and day portion of that scripture, so the days are clearly defined as 24 hours (time for night and day to pass as defined). So the 6 day creation is an accurate depiction. In the same day it says god created all the animals and humans, which we know to be false.

The story is a joke and it cannot even match the story in the same book.


RE: No Life on Mars
By gitserved on 1/18/2009 2:10:31 AM , Rating: 2
Well you presnet what appears to be an obvious flaw in the wording of Genesis. I read the link and I was not impressed. By doing my own research I have found some things that may be beneficial to this discussion.
My interpretation in my previous post was based on my memory of something I read. Needless to say it was not as accurate as I would have liked it to be. Thus giving you fuel for your burning desire to discredit the Bible and all it stands for.
Now that I have references at my disposal I can share some accurate knowledge. First off the Herbrew word yohm translated day can mean different lengths of time. Similar to the way in english we refer to a mans lifetime as his day. For example "in my father's day" or "in da Vinci's day." As for the 7 creation days, here goes.
Now you have to understand that the creation story was written from the perspective of somone standing on the earth. Not God himself.
Day 1 Light came into existence. The earth and moon were in space before this first day, but their light did not reach the surface for someone standing on earth to see. Light became visible on earth this first day, and the rotating earth began to have days and nights. It is also worth mentioning that this was probably diffused light. Not like turning on a switch.
Day 2 "Let an expanse come to be...." The hebrew word, raqi'a, translated expanse, means to stretch out, expand or spread out. Birds would fly in this expanse later in Gen. 1:20
Day 3 Land forms. That should be simple enough to figure out.Also, grass, seed bearing vegetation, and fruit trees. The diffused light was ample enough for photosynthesis to take place. This would be the time although it is not mentioned that water plants and microscopic organisms would have been created.
Day 4 Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens......Get ready for this. The hebrew word 'ohr meaning "light" in the general sense, was used when the first day was described. Ma'ohr which means the source of the light is used on the fourth day. Therefore, diffused light penetrated the clouds on the first day, but it was not until the fourth day that the source was revealed. This would be the time when the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was absorbed by the plantlife thus creating oxygen. The stuff we breath.
Mistranslation and fanatics lead people away from the truth. Just a little research and what you wrote makes no sense.


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/19/2009 11:39:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now you have to understand that the creation story was written from the perspective of somone standing on the earth. Not God himself.


Can you prove this?

Day 1: It states light, but later mentions stars, this is a clear misunderstanding of light. Also, can you show where it mentions the moon specifically? It states "Heaven", but clearly that did not include stars or the Earth, as these were specified later.

Day 2, 3 and 4: You made no point, so I will move on.

Please answer the parts I previously pointed out as issues with the creation story, cause you clearly blazed past them as quick as possible. There are many open ended things you obviously ignore, like how was there water on this "formless" planet as you described it? How were men and beasts created the same day in the book when this is false? How were stars created after light?


RE: No Life on Mars
By gitserved on 1/19/2009 8:07:11 PM , Rating: 2
Prove what? You know God did not write the Bible. How did I make no point? I pointed out the context the original language the story was written in. There being light, and the source being revealed. Try reading it again.

I will try to give you a simple illustration. Imagine you were in a house with the windows covered and no electricity. There is no light so you can't tell day from night. Something happens and one of the windows is uncovered. Now light comes in. Guess what? Now you know when it is light outside and when it is dark. You can't see the sun, just light from it. Eventually the other windows are uncovered. Now you can see the sun and moon. Two things that were there before you just could not see them. I explained the different words used in the original hebrew. You are getting all hung up on the wording, relying on technicalities for some sort of basis. Many translations are indeed wrong because they were written when there was not a complete understanding of the language. However there are many people now who can translate way better than Your pal King James could 500 years ago.
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. You fell into the trap of believing whatever suports your belief without examining it. Read Gen 1:14-19. That is the fourth day. You will get your moon and stars. A misunderstanding of light. It would be nice if you back up your assertions. Maybe the illustration made my point a little more clear.

Back to the whole "formless" reference. You look up that definition yet? No definite form or shape. How deep do you want to get? Would it have been better if the author wrote, "The earth was a rotating sphere covered in water?" How about this? "There was no light penetrating the thick cloud cover, so it was shrouded in darkness. There was a break in the clouds and there was light. That caused day and night to occur. After millions of years more and more light came through and there was a begining of an atmosphere. Geological movements of the Earth's crust caused land to emerge, and slowly plants began to thrive. The carbon dioxide rich air combined with lush vegetation produced an atmosphere abundant in oxygen allowing airbreathing creatures come about. Eventually mankind was a result."

Honestly that sounds like a science text book. The Bible is not one. The creation account follows that timeline, and scientists who understand the language of the Bible and the history of the Earth agree. Not everyone is obsessed with trying to advocate stupidity and ignorance. When I make a mistake I can admit it. If you can prove me wrong try. I am sure you will find some webpage and post a link. This time at least make sure it contains factual unbiased info.

The point I was getting at was that the earth lacked a definite shape. This could go in any direction because if it was covered in water the surface would be constantly changing making the statement correct. Or, you could say that the end result was the definate shape intended. Either way it started out formless. Don't go back to crying about it says he created stars after light. Either use a different translation or realize that if something is covered up, it can't be seen. If you don't see it, it is not there. What would you say when it was uncovered? "It was there all along,I just didn't see it." or "It appeared?"


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/20/2009 10:10:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Prove what?


Every baseless comment made by your or the bible, speculation and guessing isn't truth, it is just saying possibilities. We could do that all day, but it is nothing more than mental masturbation.

quote:
I will try to give you a simple illustration.


No need, I completely understood what you were saying, point to where the bible actually says what you said or you are just guessing.

quote:
That is the fourth day. You will get your moon and stars. A misunderstanding of light.


Exactly my point, he said light was there well before the stars, doesn't work and you know it. You can argue it whatever way you want but it clearly states there is light before there are stars which is not the case. How were there even days if there were no stars (including the Sun)? The Earth would have nothing to hold it in orbit and we know for a fact the Sun formed before the Earth. Even in it's horribly vague nature, it got it wrong. This makes it pretty clear it was written by man and not divinely inspired.

quote:
You look up that definition yet?


Understood, you stated it was a formless ball of the molten core, the bible clearly states there was water on it during this time, how is that possible?

quote:
This time at least make sure it contains factual unbiased info.


Let me know when you find something unbiased. Short of science textbooks, it is quite rare, especially when dealing with supernatural claims. This is like arguing Chemistry over Alchemy, you can say the Chemist is biased, but in reality he just has more information to work with and no reason to believe in Alchemy anymore.

quote:
If you don't see it, it is not there.


Wow, this is a bad statement on your part my friend, you just opened up quite the Pandora's Box. Let's dissect this for a bit. So, I can't see air, is it there? Can't see the sun during an eclipse, does it disappear? Sun is not up when it is night, does that mean the Sun has disappeared? Can't see god ever, does that mean he isn't there?

quote:
"It was there all along,I just didn't see it." or "It appeared?"


An intelligent person would look into it and find out it was there all along we just didn't see it. Much in the same way we don't think the Sun disappears at night. You are using ignorant arguments here, this is not a good thing. I will be honest with you, you do no service to your cause as you argue against simple scientific principles. It is like the question "If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound". Yes, of course it does. We now know sound does not require the human ear to exist. We know sound is a wave and there is no question that it exists whether we hear it or not. Light is the very same way, it does not rely on us seeing it to exist.


RE: No Life on Mars
By gitserved on 1/20/2009 11:36:54 AM , Rating: 2
I am simply comparing the timeline of events in the creation story to the way the birth of the planet is described by scientists. You are obviously uneducated in many things if you still don't realize that whatever translation you are looking at is not an accurate rendering of the original language used. I thought I explained the context of the words used to describe the light you keep refering to. Quit masturbating for real and pay attention to what facts I have presented. As far as the molten core thing, I already stated that was from my memory. And I already said that was incorrect. Go up a couple of posts you will see.

Everything else makes perfect sense. The only thing that prevents us from being able to see things in space are clouds. Dummy. Can't see the sun on a cloudy day. Just light. Can't see the moon or the stars on a cloudy night. How hard is it to understand? For a long time people thought the earth was flat. You want to get all critical because someone with a language a lot more primative than ours did not vividly describe creation. Get serious. Grow up a little.

In all acuality alchemists were correct in that they thought everthing was made of the same stuff. They just did not realize that it was on the atomic level. Chemistry worked, alchemy didn't. Chemestry was derived from alchemy.

The pandoras box garbage is another bold attempt to play on words. There was no scientific method back then. We know there is air. We know what happens during an eclipse. For a long that was not so. Just like some poeple thought the earth was the center of the universe. In our modern age we have made many scientific advancements. Thanks to technologhy. People did not have telescopes all those many years ago. Why do you act like they did?

quote:
An intelligent person would look into it and find out it was there all along we just didn't see it.


Intelligence is not a factor. All the author did was write what he was inspired to write. That was his purpose. For a primative man,"If he didn't see it, it was not there." is pretty accurate. Whoever originally wrote the creation story used the simple language of the time. Vague to you, because your translation is crappy. As we know language itself has evolved. How do you think someone with a fraction of the words at our disposal would explain something they never saw before? You think you know more than you do. The fact is you do read. You just read bad info.

I have defended the creation story by explaining what you thought were inconsistencies. Both literal and scientific. I see no factual basis to your claims.


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/20/2009 3:00:00 PM , Rating: 2
Let me refute most of this really quick. God is posed as an omnipotent being. It does not matter what they understood or knew back then, this book is presented as the word of god. You are effectively telling me that an omnipotent being didn't realize these simple things. He knew the future obviously, so why didn't he see these doubts coming up later? I will give you a hint, cause it didn't happen.


RE: No Life on Mars
By gitserved on 1/21/2009 4:20:41 AM , Rating: 2
Well for starters we have free will. If he gave you a sign that he was real, whatever it takes to convince you, that would be problematic. Here is why. Would you serve him out of love or total fear? God wants people with decent hearts and faith. Not pets. There is a reason for everything. The questions you ask are actually answered in the book you hate so much. That is probably why it is so long, nothing was left out. At least read Proverbs there are some intelligent writings in there. Even if you approach it as a work of fiction the stories of Jesus's life are worth reading. Start at Matthew and see how far you get. Honestly you have to want to understand.


RE: No Life on Mars
By gitserved on 1/17/2009 11:28:22 AM , Rating: 2
Not a planet with volcanoes, but an unstable molten mass. Try reading the definition of the word formless. "Lacking definite form or shape." Look at the way stars are formed. They begin with no definate shape. Just their components out in space, and over millions of years they go through different phases. Just like the earth did. The components were there. They were just unstable and the surface was constantly changing? Now....do you want to try that again?


RE: No Life on Mars
By Bateluer on 1/15/2009 3:51:43 PM , Rating: 2
When I read your comments, here are my first thoughts. If you'd written this, or spoke it publicly, you'd charged with heresy. Our modern interpretation of the Bible flies in the face of how it was interpreted even a century ago, let along several centuries ago.

And we'll continue to amend, alter, and re-interpret the Bible as time goes on.

For example, in the 18th century, the Biblical flood of Noah was an accepted fact because it was in the Bible. People believed that God flooded the entire Earth. Today, we know this is impossible, there simply isn't enough water, to say nothing about the atmospheric changes that would occur. Therefore, we've re-interpreted the Bible to say that it was a more local flood instead of global.


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/15/2009 4:37:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For example, in the 18th century, the Biblical flood of Noah was an accepted fact because it was in the Bible. People believed that God flooded the entire Earth. Today, we know this is impossible, there simply isn't enough water, to say nothing about the atmospheric changes that would occur. Therefore, we've re-interpreted the Bible to say that it was a more local flood instead of global.


Pretty much. This is what brings me hope, to know that over time the beliefs dilute so heavily and will eventually be so diluted only the delusional and insane can cling to such beliefs.

Maybe then we can finally progress a bit more as a society rather than trying to get creationism taught in schools, waste time in church and with the thumping, we can stop explaining to believers that evolution doesn't say we evolved from monkeys or how life even started, we can stop explaining even the most basic of physics and so on and maybe move back to progressing together as a species.


RE: No Life on Mars
By phinehas on 1/15/2009 11:38:36 PM , Rating: 2
All NASA has to do is mention the magical word of "Life" on another planet in order to get all the atheists, which suffer from StarTrekism, to have collective orgasms and become relevant for the next 15 minutes. It's all about relavance and funding.

As far as all the Bible bashing...learn what the Bible actually says and what Science has actually proven. To make it easy on all of you, just go here and learn about the "Gap Theory", which is factual to the Bible and Science and makes plain sense. http://www.kjvbible.org/


RE: No Life on Mars
By maven81 on 1/16/2009 10:02:14 AM , Rating: 2
It's not a NASA goal to find life elsewhere in the universe, it's a human goal. What exactly is your problem with that?


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/16/2009 10:21:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's not a NASA goal to find life elsewhere in the universe, it's a human goal. What exactly is your problem with that?


It is the game of demonizing. He offsets human goals onto one group, then demonizes that goal and the people with it. Classic move by people who have no real point or argument, so they attack the people rather than think.


RE: No Life on Mars
By phinehas on 1/16/2009 11:37:56 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, you have no evidence that it is a human goal to find "water" or "life" on other planets. Your ilk is projecting your fairy tale dreams on everyone. I have thought about the issue, which I refute and I have thought about the people that are pushing this crap and I refute them as well.


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/17/2009 12:16:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
All NASA has to do is mention the magical word of "Life" on another planet in order to get all the atheists, which suffer from StarTrekism, to have collective orgasms and become relevant for the next 15 minutes. It's all about relavance and funding.


quote:
LOL, you have no evidence that it is a human goal to find "water" or "life" on other planets.


It seems funny that you make an assertion that atheists are the only ones that get excited over the prospect of life on other planets, then get mad when he makes a statement that it is human nature. You have no evidence that atheists are the only ones that do this as well, so your assertion is no better. A better way to put it is any curious mind (read intelligent) will get at least somewhat excited over the prospect of life on other planets.

quote:
Your ilk is projecting your fairy tale dreams on everyone.


Oh the irony.

quote:
I have thought about the issue, which I refute and I have thought about the people that are pushing this crap and I refute them as well.


Refute them with what? More assertions?


RE: No Life on Mars
By phinehas on 1/16/2009 11:34:55 PM , Rating: 2
That's your opinion. Mine is that most people don't care about anything, at least not for very long, if it doesn't affect their lives in some manner. The only thing all this "Water!...OMG water..we found some....water!" hysteria has done is cost a boat load of money that could be used to deal with practical problems here on earth.

It's a metal disease, which I label as StarTrek Delusion Syndrome and it is an irrational desire to get off a planet that can sustain life to go to another close by planet that can't. There will be no warp drives, we can't even come close to the speed of light, none alone exceed it...with out that ability, we can never get to anywhere that could have life/intelligence that would make a difference.

It's a big waste of resources and time.


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/17/2009 12:07:53 AM , Rating: 2
You have a horrible misunderstanding of science, I'm sorry, but it is really sad. The greatest ideas at this point are not traveling the speed of light, that is silly. It is the idea of either tearing wormholes or bending space to traverse a shorter distance, both of which make sense and deserve research to verify if it is possible.

Your complete lack of curiosity worries me. You would prefer we do nothing but live? Where would we be without NASA? So many things come from NASA and you don't even realize it. As stated previously, I can see links between intelligence and curiosity. Finding water on other planets could lead us closer to our origins and a better understanding of the universe. There is a reason people like you aren't in charge of these things, it's because you have no drive other than to survive and have your materialistic crap. I'd give up everything I own just to go to space before I die.


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/16/2009 10:06:37 AM , Rating: 2
Please stop, you are trying to present a "theory" that exists by using the bible to try to prove the bible. You cannot prove a book using the same book, it doesn't work. They throw around "theory" too much. It is inaccurate, it is merely a silly idea as there is NOTHING supporting the belief. Theories require some sort of support and peer review. They add theory to their BS to try to make it sound scientific and there by more plausible which is deceitful and does a disservice to the real theories.


RE: No Life on Mars
By phinehas on 1/16/2009 11:41:50 PM , Rating: 2
Actually no. I am presenting a theory that looks at the scientific evidence available and matches it up with what is recorded in the Bible. They do not contradict when the Bible is rightly divided and the available scientific evidence is viewed.

Read the link I gave or stay ignorant, your choice.


RE: No Life on Mars
By Gzus666 on 1/17/2009 12:12:09 AM , Rating: 2
I read some of your article, but when I see him taking the bible figuratively cause he wants to (there is nothing to begin to give credence to such a claim) and has "Jesus Inside" Intel ripoff at the bottom, it is clear the site is HEAVILY biased. I read the neutral sites about the silly "theory" and it is a joke. I'm sorry, but if you truly accept that crap as a theory, you are either fooling yourself or completely blind to reality.

Please stick with real science or I can't argue with you as you are not grounded in reality.