Would life on Mars be a problem for your religious beliefs?

[Blackwater Babe]

Okayyyyyyy.... Let me break it down for you since you either missed my previous post entirely or you did not understand it. I already covered the ALH 84001 meteorite. Here is my previous post.

"I could not find any literature reviews over hypotheses involving life from Mars going to earth on the Science Direct database.

I'm assuming you are talking about the ALH 84001 meteorite which supposedly contained fossilized bacteria and other chemicals thought to be produced by life only. As far as I can tell, these claims have never been verified or taken very seriously in the scientific community."

The ALH 84001 meteorite was thought to contain structures from fossilized bacteria. This has never been validated nor widely accepted by the scientific community. NASA itself denied the results. Here is a quote from NASA regarding the ALH 84001 meteorite:

"NASA is a scientific and technical agency committed to a culture of openness with the media and public. While we value the free exchange of ideas, data, and information as part of scientific and technical inquiry, NASA cannot stand behind or support a scientific claim unless it has been peer-reviewed or thoroughly examined by other qualified experts. This paper was submitted in 2007 to the International Journal of Astrobiology. However, the peer review process was not completed for that submission. NASA also was unaware of the recent submission of the paper to the Journal of Cosmology or of the paper's subsequent publication. Additional questions should be directed to the author of the paper." - Dr. Paul Hertz, chief scientist of NASA's Science Mission Directorate in Washington"

Moving on. You seem to not know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.Your second "source" is nothing more than a scientific hypothesis.

Your third "source" is a hypothesis, as well. It is a researcher trying to find life on Mars. The researcher himself states "It's a long shot". He then states IF life is found and IF it is related to us, life could have come from Mars. That is NOT a theory. That is a hypothesis, at best.

So let me tell you this: I already posted where I looked for sources, it was Science Direct, a huge scientific database. This database has no scientific literature regarding life on Earth coming from Mars (Granted, I only looked for about an hour but searches get less and less relevant the further you go). You completely missed the point of my posts.

Lastly, you are getting your "sources" from Google. Sorry, but you are the one that does not know where to look for your sources. Though I respect the Discovery Channel, it is hardly a source for actual scientific literature. This is clearly evident due to their misuse of the word "theory". If you require aid looking for actual scientific literature I would be happy to help.

Well pardon [language filter] me.

 

[serge546]

What about the National Geographic Channel?

Are you saying all those documentaries about the universe and geology and evolution isn't actual science?

Not sure if you are trying to twist my words to fit your creationist viewpoint but I would prefer if you did not. I am not talking about geology, the universe or evolution in my post.

Even then, of course the science shows are valid if they have actual scientists. If you read my post at all you would have understood that the source posted was written by a writer which obviously did not have a science background. That is not scientific literature. I clearly said scientific literaturein my post. Literature, literature, literature. A blog is not scientific literature.

 

[serge546]

Well pardon [language filter] me.

No problem. Your posted sounded like it had intent to insult so I merely responded accordingly. I have no grudge against you and hope to discuss other topics in a professional manner.

 

[juvenissun]

Evolution "said" no such thing.Conditions have to be optimal for evolution to take place.If they are not, evolution would not take place.

Not necessarily.Other planets that support life may not go through drastic extremes in their environments.
Europa may have life,and it is constantly under a thick layer of ice.

If a planet allowed cells to survive, then the condition is optimal. And evolution will take place.

So, would we find one type of life or many types of life in the water of Europa?

 

[The Engineer]

If a planet allowed cells to survive, then the condition is optimal. And evolution will take place.

If the conditions of a planet allow cells to survive, this means that they allow cells to survive. That doesn't mean they allow the survival of more complex organisms, like animals or plants.

You're right, evolution will take place, but that doesn't mean bacteria will necessarily become animals. It just means the bacteria will evolve.

So, would we find one type of life or many types of life in the water of Europa?

This depends on how you define type of life. If you define bacteria as one type of life, then I'd say we'll probably find just this one type. If you define different bacteria as different types of life, then we'll find several types.

 

[GodActsOnMe]

Nope, it was all natural.

Oh, I know. They perceived it as such though.

Not only did the ancients see the planets with their naked eye, they were also terrified of them because of their destructive behavior. The scars and craters on the planets attest to their destructive behavior.

Human sacrifice was probably introduced to appease the angry planet-gods.

It doesn't matter to me how the ancients reacted to the event.

But yet we are not dead.

Yep, and oddly enough, this can apply to your argument. ;D

 

[freezerman2000]

If a planet allowed cells to survive, then the condition is optimal. And evolution will take place.

So, would we find one type of life or many types of life in the water of Europa?

Conditions can be to harsh for evolution not to occur,yet not harsh enough to preclude life..got it?

One day,when we land a probe on Europa, tunnel through the ice and it is able to send back information about the water, we will find out. I think there will be many types.
Until that day, all we can do is speculate.
Of what we all ready know,there is liquid water..warm enough to support at least,extremophiles (Like the plankton that thrives off of Antarctica).

 

[juvenissun]

If the conditions of a planet allow cells to survive, this means that they allow cells to survive. That doesn't mean they allow the survival of more complex organisms, like animals or plants.

You're right, evolution will take place, but that doesn't mean bacteria will necessarily become animals. It just means the bacteria will evolve.


This depends on how you define type of life. If you define bacteria as one type of life, then I'd say we'll probably find just this one type. If you define different bacteria as different types of life, then we'll find several types.

He he he ... I wish some people will read this one.

Sorry, but that was what I said in a long debate sometime ago.

 

[Elendur]

He he he ... I wish some people will read this one.

Sorry, but that was what I said in a long debate sometime ago.

I doubt that's exactly what you wrote, feel free to provide evidence otherwise though.

 

[The Engineer]

He he he ... I wish some people will read this one.

Sorry, but that was what I said in a long debate sometime ago.

I still don't agree with you. For me, evolution doesn't mean that bacteria will necessarily turn into animals. It just means they will become better at survival and procreation; if that means they will stay bacteria, then they will stay bacteria.

The difference between the two of us is that I use the term correctly.

 

[serge546]

I still don't agree with you. For me, evolution doesn't mean that bacteria will necessarily turn into animals. It just means they will become better at survival and procreation; if that means they will stay bacteria, then they will stay bacteria.

The difference between the two of us is that I use the term correctly.

The Engineer is correct. Animals are not any better than other life forms, it all comes down to adaptation to your environment. On earth, some lineages of life found it advantageous to develop multicellularity and eventually became animals.

This does not mean evolution on other planets would lead to animals or humans, as their conditions and selection pressures might be different.

 

[florida2]

I still don't agree with you. For me, evolution doesn't mean that bacteria will necessarily turn into animals. It just means they will become better at survival and procreation; if that means they will stay bacteria, then they will stay bacteria.

The difference between the two of us is that I use the term correctly.

Exactly - which means why we still have single celled organisms today, not just animals and other complex multi-cellular life.

 

[juvenissun]

I still don't agree with you. For me, evolution doesn't mean that bacteria will necessarily turn into animals. It just means they will become better at survival and procreation; if that means they will stay bacteria, then they will stay bacteria.

The difference between the two of us is that I use the term correctly.

That is why I said that I do expect to find plants and bacteria on other planets. But no animals.

 

[Doveaman]

Animals are not any better than other life forms, it all comes down to adaptation to your environment.

That would explain why humans are not animals. We are obviously better than other life forms. We even drive them out of their own environment and occupy it.

 

[freezerman2000]

That would explain why humans are not animals. We are obviously better than other life forms. We even drive them out of their own environment and occupy it.

Mammals are animals..We are mammals..what does that make us? Animals,but with the highest brain function..

 

[Elendur]

That would explain why humans are not animals. We are obviously better than other life forms. We even drive them out of their own environment and occupy it.

Am I to interpret that as if humans haven't been driven out of their enviroment by other animals?

 

[AECellini]

That would explain why humans are not animals. We are obviously better than other life forms. We even drive them out of their own environment and occupy it.

lolwut.

 

[The Engineer]

That is why I said that I do expect to find plants and bacteria on other planets. But no animals.

That wasn't your opinion at all! Your opinion was that, as long as we see no animals, evolution is wrong!

Now you agree with me, after I refuted your point? Nice!

That would explain why humans are not animals.

Humans fulfill all the criteria to count as animals.

Try harder.

We are obviously better than other life forms. We even drive them out of their own environment and occupy it.

Except for rats, which still live with us. And cockroaches. And flies.

Just because you can argue that we are the most well-adapted life form doesn't mean we are not animals.

Why don't we just look at the definition for 'animal'?
animal - definition of animal by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

1. A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia,

Check.

differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion,

Check.

nonphotosynthetic metabolism,

Check.

pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure.

Check, check, CHECK!

Now, you may say that we are different from animals according to most definitions, but those aren't the biological definitions, which means that they aren't important for the discussion at hand.

Again, you have proven ignorant of biology.

 

[Doveaman]

Humans fulfill all the criteria to count as animals.

Try harder.

Animals do not wear clothes.

 

[Elendur]

Animals do not wear clothes.

I thought we were over this already.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7678012-13/