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.
ThisIsAnExampleAccountGL@yahoo.com
1. If a cult can survive after the predicted date of the end of the world, I think religions are pretty much here to stay regardless of the evidence against.
2. When confronted with new evidence, you can always make a new religion or adapt an old one to maintain logical consistence. Of course, then the distinction between religion and science becomes awfully blurry.
3. Maybe logic simply doesn't work.
I predicted today's result a few days ago and only got moderated to a 2.
Previous postingan ill wind that blows no good
NASA spent $860 on two rovers to tell everyone that Mars once had water! Amazing. Just give us another billion and we'll tell you that found evidence of bacteria. Wow. For another billion, we'll go to Neptune and tell you that once, Neptune had dirt. Wow.
I find it hard to understand that PI equals 3.
Untill god comes to *me* and explain, I will not
belive in neither a god nor a PI that equals 3.
Ah, so this is accepted when looking for life on Mars, and not for WMD's in Iraq, even though the latter is significantly more plausible than the former.
How literally was everyone taking Genesis 100 years ago? How literally is everyone taking it now? What's changed, except that our knowledge of science has risen and our tolerance of dogma has dropped? If we're supposed to accept religious teachings on faith, is it too much to ask that those teachings be constant, and not be continuously backpedaling as their disproven? And how is it that these peddlers of religion haven't lost all credability by now?
Bah.
I know this must be exciting for the scientific community, but it really doesnt change anything IMHO. Mars *might* have had water at one point? I could have told you that yesterday or 20 years ago. The evidence is not 100% conclusive, just one more piece of the puzzle. Wake me up when they find *actual water* (or ice)
I found water in my bathtub this morning. You don't see my holding a press conference.
I never said science was pop philosophy. I love science. I'm saying your analysis of religion and beliefs are pop philosophy.
Yeah, anything that disagrees with the GREAT FORCE OF KNOWLEDGE that is Taoism is "pop philosophy".
Pop philosophy? Ha! Pop philosophy, if anything, is the eastern claptrap you have fallen for hook, like, and sinker. People are fascinated with that trash nowadays-- just look at the Matrix, THAT is pop philosophy.
[quote]
I agree, all empirical claims are within the reach of science. But scientific thought (as is probably all thought) is based on a metaphysical framework. As can seen by the advances science has given us, the framework upon which science is supported is fantastic FOR WHAT IT IS MEANT TO DO.[/quote]
Which is to make observations of and describe the universe, which leaves no room for religion except to control people.
[quote]
I'd argue, however, that science isn't the right tool for all problems. Like a sense of well-being, compassion, or morals.
Those are philosophical topics. Many philosophers, scientists, and including myself, agree that they are subjective things-- you cannot subjective morality as a true outside force.
Well-being, though, is very scientific as scientifics can or will be more able to one day describe the workings of the brain. Compassion, of course, is another instinctual part of us, as is morals-- the brain chemistry of morals is discussed in this months Discover.
I never told you what I believed in. I don't believe in silly deities or magical forces. You just wanted to be an asshole and assume it about me because I dared to give you an opinion other than your own. I am a pantheist (some would say that I'm really an atheist).
I know exactly what a pantheist is, it's semantic nonsense. "All is God". Sure, only if you define "All" to mean "God". Of course, the traditional definition of "god" includes "concious being" of some sort-- and there is no evidence to support that assertion of all. If that isn't what you mean by god, then it's painfully obvious you want to call yourself a "god believer" while not really believing in a true deity.
I don't believe in the supernatural. I also believe that no materialistic view of the world can explain all physical phenomenon without contradiction.
If it's not materialistic, it's supernatural, Mr. Pop Philosophy Eastern Claptrap. You have yet to explain how materialism is contradictory when science itself is materialistic (ever see a scientist propose that the universe itself just decided to make something happen-- your pantheistic nonsense, that is...)
This leaves room for what I'd consider "religious beliefs" that can exist without contradicting science. (Sorry. Not much time to get into more detail than that). I also freely admit when I don't know exactly how something works.
Religion is the antithesis of rational thought. HOW DO YOU COME TO "RELIGIOUS CONCLUSIONS"? Obviously, it's not through data-gathering or critical thinking-- it's from being easily swayed by "THE WISDOM OF THE ANCIENTS", as in your case, or from being exceptionally gullible (as is also in your case).
Anything which makes a statement about reality can be approached by science. Science can tell us what morals come from (that is, how we decide what is moral, along with all other decision-making processes) but can't tell us what IS moral-- that's subjective and can't be approached objectively.
You are just struggling to get your precious religion to fit in with your "crap" worldview. You twist things to instead wait on evidence you wait until something disproves your claim (anyone could tell you that's impossible, as I did already), you are purposefully vague (religion is meant to describe things science can't. I will say nothing regarding how those "things" are decided so I can attempt to look smart). You also attempt to look smart by using the word "metaphysics", which a
---
Never criticize religion on Slashdot. You will be modded down for "Troll" no matter how factual it is.