"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
...
January 30, 2004

Ian Goddard wrote:

The recent thread-leading paper by Taylor and Barry is an continuation
of research on the ALH84001 meteorite that McKay et al (1996) proposed
may contain fossilized magnetotactic bacteria. While counter
hypotheses have been raised and a general consensus tends to favor
them as a standard cautionary protocol, it would not be fair to say
the biogenic hypothesis has been "proved to be erroneous." For
example, Buseck et al, who argue against a biogenic interpretation,
observe that the contents of ALH84001 are "controversial."

Only an idiot would substitute 'caution' and 'controversy' for 'evidence'.

You're confusing 'evidence' with 'proof'. You can't
ask for evidence of a claim, and then when that
evidence is not a definitive proof, claim there is no
evidence. Evidence is simply that, and can be pro
or con. Scientists generally do not believe things
without some evidence, and when you have a large
controversy such as ALH84001, you have scientists
on both sides of the issue, and EVIDENCE on both
sides of the issue. Which body of evidence you find
collectively more persuasive is a matter of personal
choice and ultimately group consensus.

There was all sorts of evidence the Earth circled the
sun at one time, but it was still a 'controversy', with
people arguing both sides of the issue. Was that
evidence NOT evidence on one day, and then later
somehow BECAME evidence was the controversy
had passed? No, I think not. It was always evidence.
It simply turned out to support the right conclusion.

Bruce