|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Mars - Gemmule on a Stick
March 4, 2004
Kenneth Chiu wrote: Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote: Chosp wrote: [regurgitation snipped] God you are dumb as hell. And blind as well. This is Mars, idiot, and all you do is spew regurgitated nonsense. If you would look deeply into the vast amount of research into precambrian life on Earth, you would see that there is very good evidence for all the precursors for martian chemistry, biology and ecology right here on Earth, and all that is required is insight (which you lack completely) into the fact that evolution follows chemistry and environment, and that Mars is just another planet where evolution will take an entirely different track because of entirely different ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ environmental circumstances. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Exactly. Which is why using exceedingly superficial morphological similarity of a Martian phenomena to an _Earth_ life-form to "prove" anything is silly. Proof is mathematical, science is demonstrative, crackpot. Just as there are environmental and morphological differences, there are environmental and morphological similarities. We know Mars is a planet, it has gravity, water, impacts, volcanism, solar irradiance, and presumably the same underlying physical and chemical laws as Earth. It even has a roughly 24 hour rotation period, what are the chances of that? The arguments I encounter here and in the scientific community are always so one-sided. It would also be silly, indeed it is outright scientific dishonesty, *not* to notice the striking and remarkable similarities between the bedrock and the spherules, and microbial mat communities and sponge gemmules. Chosp also appears to be having a hard time understanding that ancient concretions are more often than not, associated with microbiology, simple because he refuses to *do his homework*, like some spoiled ignorant little child. I have not seen one convincing abiotic argument anywhere, and all the evidence thus far has been supportive of the biogenic hypothesis, more so every day. Drivel on crackpots. You are everywhere. Thomas Lee Elifritz http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Mars - Gemmule on a Stick
March 4, 2004
Peterson, David wrote: I think Greg is trying to be conservative, like all scientists should be. Sure, if they want to be wrong, or are afraid to be wrong. There is nothing wrong with being wrong. But clinging to wrong beliefs for years, in direct contradiction to the evidence, makes one a crackpot, Thus, from the evidence, there have been a lot of crackpots at the highest levels of the scientific establishment for many years with respect to Mars. The public are their victims. The run of the mill usenet crackpots are inconsequential. Wow, and to think just yesterday the outcrops where ashfall and the spherules were volcanic or crater tektites. Which, in retrospect, is strikingly wrong. Where are all the retractions? Feel free to publish your Mars geology retractions here. Thomas Lee Elifritz http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Mars - Gemmule on a Stick
In article ,
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote: March 4, 2004 Kenneth Chiu wrote: Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote: Chosp wrote: [regurgitation snipped] God you are dumb as hell. And blind as well. This is Mars, idiot, and all you do is spew regurgitated nonsense. If you would look deeply into the vast amount of research into precambrian life on Earth, you would see that there is very good evidence for all the precursors for martian chemistry, biology and ecology right here on Earth, and all that is required is insight (which you lack completely) into the fact that evolution follows chemistry and environment, and that Mars is just another planet where evolution will take an entirely different track because of entirely different ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ environmental circumstances. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Exactly. Which is why using exceedingly superficial morphological similarity of a Martian phenomena to an _Earth_ life-form to "prove" anything is silly. Proof is mathematical, science is demonstrative, crackpot. Okay, is this better: Exactly. Which is why using exceedingly superficial morphological similarity of a Martian phenomena to an _Earth_ life-form to "demonstrate" anything is silly. Just as there are environmental and morphological differences, there are environmental and morphological similarities. ... The arguments I encounter here and in the scientific community are always so one-sided. It would also be silly, indeed it is outright scientific dishonesty, *not* to notice the striking and remarkable similarities between the bedrock and the spherules, and microbial mat communities and sponge gemmules. In other words, because the Earth and Mars are similar, the spherules must be gemmules because they are both round; but because Earth and Mars are different, we must ignore any evidence to the contrary. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Mars...no real surprises so far?
Perhaps I am jaundiced after a life-long habit of reading science,
geology and science fiction. Yes, it is pretty neat that the rovers are rolling around on Mars and doing firsthand geology, and testing some hypotheses, either confirming or refuting those hypotheses. However, I have yet to hear anything really startling. Water? As others have noted, we've known the existence of water vapor for years, so the idea that some of this is ice or subsurface brines is not really new. "As above, so below". The spherules are new, but at this time, they don't prove anything. As nearly everyone (myself included) are using earth geology analogies to try to understand Martian conditions this is well within the basic philosophical assumptions of Hutton, Steno, Lyell, etc., and not groundbreaking new thought. Maybe that will change as we grapple with new discoveries. The possibility of microbial life? As we have found earth microbial life in some pretty inhospitable (by human terms) places, the idea that life exists elsewhere but on this planet should be a given assumption, not a startling relevation. After all, molecules are molecules, and they might be expected to behave in roughly similar ways in differing places with fairly near conditions. (Comparing Mars surface to Earth surface, they are similar, as opposed to Venus, or Pluto, or the sun, or deep space.) So why are people getting so excited about this? Merely as a distraction from the other *news* that people aren't civilized yet, and do stupid things every day? Me? I want to understand Deimos and Phobos. Now *there* are two mysteries! Jo |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Mars...no real surprises so far?
"Jo Schaper" wrote in message ... Perhaps I am jaundiced after a life-long habit of reading science, geology and science fiction. Yes, it is pretty neat that the rovers are rolling around on Mars and doing firsthand geology, and testing some hypotheses, either confirming or refuting those hypotheses. However, I have yet to hear anything really startling. Water? As others have noted, we've known the existence of water vapor for years, so the idea that some of this is ice or subsurface brines is not really new. "As above, so below". The spherules are new, but at this time, they don't prove anything. As nearly everyone (myself included) are using earth geology analogies to try to understand Martian conditions this is well within the basic philosophical assumptions of Hutton, Steno, Lyell, etc., and not groundbreaking new thought. Maybe that will change as we grapple with new discoveries. The possibility of microbial life? As we have found earth microbial life in some pretty inhospitable (by human terms) places, the idea that life exists elsewhere but on this planet should be a given assumption, not a startling relevation. After all, molecules are molecules, and they might be expected to behave in roughly similar ways in differing places with fairly near conditions. (Comparing Mars surface to Earth surface, they are similar, as opposed to Venus, or Pluto, or the sun, or deep space.) So why are people getting so excited about this? Merely as a distraction from the other *news* that people aren't civilized yet, and do stupid things every day? Me? I want to understand Deimos and Phobos. Now *there* are two mysteries! Jo Why do you think they are such mysteries? I'm not doubting you, just asking for your opinion. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Mars - Gemmule on a Stick
"Kenneth Chiu" wrote in message ... In article , Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote: March 4, 2004 Kenneth Chiu wrote: Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote: Chosp wrote: [regurgitation snipped] God you are dumb as hell. And blind as well. This is Mars, idiot, and all you do is spew regurgitated nonsense. If you would look deeply into the vast amount of research into precambrian life on Earth, you would see that there is very good evidence for all the precursors for martian chemistry, biology and ecology right here on Earth, and all that is required is insight (which you lack completely) into the fact that evolution follows chemistry and environment, and that Mars is just another planet where evolution will take an entirely different track because of entirely different ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ environmental circumstances. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Exactly. Which is why using exceedingly superficial morphological similarity of a Martian phenomena to an _Earth_ life-form to "prove" anything is silly. Proof is mathematical, science is demonstrative, crackpot. Okay, is this better: Exactly. Which is why using exceedingly superficial morphological similarity of a Martian phenomena to an _Earth_ life-form to "demonstrate" anything is silly. Just as there are environmental and morphological differences, there are environmental and morphological similarities. ... The arguments I encounter here and in the scientific community are always so one-sided. It would also be silly, indeed it is outright scientific dishonesty, *not* to notice the striking and remarkable similarities between the bedrock and the spherules, and microbial mat communities and sponge gemmules. In other words, because the Earth and Mars are similar, the spherules must be gemmules because they are both round; but because Earth and Mars are different, we must ignore any evidence to the contrary. Come on Ken. Add your name to the list of those of us who have plonked this guy so we don't have to see any of his rants. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Mars...no real surprises so far?
Jo Schaper wrote:
So why are people getting so excited about this? Merely as a distraction from the other *news* that people aren't civilized yet, and do stupid things every day? You may not really be interested in an answer, but if you are then the best way I have to explain why this is exciting is to defer you to a contemporary textbook with a chapter on mars (an introductory astronomy text, for instance). Textbooks have a way of boiling things down to the big questions being pursued today. This mission is answering some of those questions. Some of us find answering basic science questions to be exciting enough. -- Greg Crinklaw Astronomical Software Developer Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m) SkyTools Software for the Observer: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html Skyhound Observing Pages: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html To reply remove spleen |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Mars - Gemmule on a Stick
March 4, 2004
Kenneth Chiu wrote: Exactly. Which is why using exceedingly superficial morphological similarity of a Martian phenomena to an _Earth_ life-form to "demonstrate" anything is silly. If you think the similarity between spherules and gemmules is 'exceedingly superficial' then you haven't been doing your homework. I'll guess you haven't even performed an 'exceedingly superficial' google search on the subject. Just as there are environmental and morphological differences, there are environmental and morphological similarities. ... The arguments I encounter here and in the scientific community are always so one-sided. It would also be silly, indeed it is outright scientific dishonesty, *not* to notice the striking and remarkable similarities between the bedrock and the spherules, and microbial mat communities and sponge gemmules. In other words, because the Earth and Mars are similar, the spherules must be gemmules because they are both round; but because Earth and Mars are different, we must ignore any evidence to the contrary. There is very little evidence to the contrary, and you would know that if you had even bothered to perform an 'exceedingly superficial' examination of the available evidence, on the contrary the similarity goes far beyond your 'exceedingly superficial' characterization of them both being 'round'. You are a crackpot skeptic, Kenneth. Thomas Lee Elifritz http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Mars...no real surprises so far?
Jo Schaper wrote: Perhaps I am jaundiced after a life-long habit of reading science, geology and science fiction. Yes, it is pretty neat that the rovers are rolling around on Mars and doing firsthand geology, and testing some hypotheses, either confirming or refuting those hypotheses. However, I have yet to hear anything really startling. Water? As others have noted, we've known the existence of water vapor for years, so the idea that some of this is ice or subsurface brines is not really new. "As above, so below". Furthermore, there are flow features all over the place - some of them dwarfing the Amazon River - that could only have been carved by flowing water. Why exactly did we need to send microscopes to Mars to look for "signs" of water? The spherules are new, but at this time, they don't prove anything. As nearly everyone (myself included) are using earth geology analogies to try to understand Martian conditions this is well within the basic philosophical assumptions of Hutton, Steno, Lyell, etc., and not groundbreaking new thought. Maybe that will change as we grapple with new discoveries. The possibility of microbial life? As we have found earth microbial life in some pretty inhospitable (by human terms) places, the idea that life exists elsewhere but on this planet should be a given assumption, not a startling relevation. After all, molecules are molecules, and they might be expected to behave in roughly similar ways in differing places with fairly near conditions. (Comparing Mars surface to Earth surface, they are similar, as opposed to Venus, or Pluto, or the sun, or deep space.) So why are people getting so excited about this? Merely as a distraction from the other *news* that people aren't civilized yet, and do stupid things every day? Me? I want to understand Deimos and Phobos. Now *there* are two mysteries! Jo |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Mars...no real surprises so far?
In article ,
Jo Schaper wrote: So why are people getting so excited about this? They're not. When Bush announced that we'd be going back to the Moon, *that* caused talk in the lunch room. This hasn't caused so much as a passing comment. People don't care. I'm a science buff (I have an M.S. in Neuroscience and read Science weekly) and an engineer, and I can't even get excited about this. Yes, it's interesting, and I'll read the story about it in Science when it comes out. But it's not a huge deal. We've suspected for years that Mars was likely warmer and wetter in its past. We now more evidence to support the prevailing hypothesis! Swell! What's on the next page? Honestly, the question of whether Mars had water (or even life) billions of years ago is not going to impact my future in any way. Now, humans on the Moon -- *that* could impact my future, and the future of my children. Getting humanity out there actually building things, living for extended periods of time with a growing population; these things are important on a far more personal level. Those are events that could actually affect our economy, demographics, and opportunities in very real and significant ways in the next few decades. That's worth getting excited about. But signs of ancient water on Mars? No. Apart from a handful of people in the field, or who have a religious interest in anything to do with Mars, nobody cares. ,------------------------------------------------------------------. | Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: | | http://www.macwebdir.com | `------------------------------------------------------------------' |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Space Calendar - November 26, 2003 | Ron Baalke | History | 2 | November 28th 03 09:21 AM |
Space Calendar - November 26, 2003 | Ron Baalke | Astronomy Misc | 1 | November 28th 03 09:21 AM |
Space Calendar - October 24, 2003 | Ron Baalke | History | 0 | October 24th 03 04:38 PM |
Space Calendar - October 24, 2003 | Ron Baalke | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 24th 03 04:38 PM |
Mars in opposition: One for the record books (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 3rd 03 04:56 PM |