Slashdot Mirror
NASA Says Mars Once "Drenched With Water"
NASA is currently holding a press conference (carried live on NASA TV) where they are discussing findings from the Mars rovers. They are saying that the crater that the second rover has landed in has convincing evidence that it was once drenched or covered in liquid water. They cite the tiny spherules, odd holes in the rocks, sulfur in the spectrometric analyses, and evidence of an iron sulfate hydrate (a hydrate is a chemical compound which includes water molecules in the crystal lattice). Update: 03/02 19:45 GMT by M : CNN has a story, or see the NASA press release.
Total recall was accurate!
-- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.
"They are saying that the crater that the second rover has landed in has convincing evidence that it was once drenched or covered in liquid water."
Liquid water?! Holy crap!
How does reading at -1 support the First Amendment?
water on mars... is the red powder some new flavor of KoolAid??
Lizard "Never let them set limits on your mind!"
Allah in Islam, 1400 years ago, described this in the Quran:
a bir-All y/science02.htm
S habir-All y/science11.htm
. htm
The universe and the big bang:
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Responses/Sh
Sun and Moon and their orbits:
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Responses/
Basically, tons of things that we're just learning turn out to be mentioned in Quran 1400 years ago. I get to believe more and more every day.
http://www.themodernreligion.com/verses_sci
It's right there! right next to the WMD :)
Roll out your SUV's... the bigger they are the faster mars will be habitable! Imagine the race to create trucks that pollute more...
(this is offended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
Whine? Certainly not. I am trying to right a profound injustice.
an ill wind that blows no good
and I love beer battered shrimp.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Those who actually have faith and believe in their religion don't need science to back it up.
Unfortunately too many nut cases mix the two and try to use one to refute the other.
Nothing is more satisfying talking to a creationist who uses scientific studies and fact to back his case(silt levels, etc). All you have to do is point out that they can't use science to back their argument because they say that science is wrong and all we should rely upon is the bible.
It all boils down to faith. If you have it truely, you don't need to convince yourself using any religious text or scientific fact. It also means that arguments with others are not needed since there is nothing to really argue about.
At least that's my take on it.
-- taking over the world, we are.
How can any religion survive that revelation?
Christianity has always survived by reinterpreting the source material. Be it the motions of the planets, the age of the earth, catastrophism, the role of special creation in the modern world, the possible existance of life on other planets, the immutability of species, or what-have-you, Christians merely proclaim that all of their previous interpretations were wrong, but they know the truth, now.
They will pretty much always be able to do this because virtually all of the information in the Bible is heavily dependent on interpretation. Much like a cold-reader, if you provide vague enough information it can be made to fit any data.
A more interesting question is "How many predictions about the universe, founded upon readings of the Bible, have turned out to be true?" The measure of a theory, after all, is how well it makes predictions. In this case the answer is "few, or none". Biblical scholars did predict that the Earth was the center of the universe, that the Sun orbited the Earth, that the surface of the Earth was static (not shaped by plate tectonics and erosion), that Earth was the only home of life (and, indeed, the only planet), that species were static, that the Earth (and the universe) were a few thousand years old, and on, and on, and on.
They have been consistently wrong. If this were an issue of science instead of faith the Christian cosmology would be dead -- its predictive value is zero.
But of course all scientific knowledge is tentative. Even with overwhelming evidence the strongest statement a scientist will make is that a particular theory is the best fit to the data, or that a particular theory is a very poor fit to the data. Faith, then, trumps all. If you believe in a particular story just because you like it you can always wedge yourself into that space in the philosophy of science, however infinitesimal, that allows that our understanding may be wrong.
apples and oranges. it's not that great strides haven't been made in spite of christianity, it's that christianity hasn't produced any great strides that couldn't have been made without it.
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.