Mars Rock Supports Cross-Seeding Theory

914 writes "Mars rover Opportunity has found a rock (nicknamed 'Bounce') that "provides conclusive evidence not only of Martian meteorites on Earth, but also of the possibility of cross-seeding." Not only that, but according to the UPI article: 'The discovery of Bounce raises the distinct possibility that life arising from a common source could have existed for a time on both worlds.'"

Comments

Which was first?

[ChronoWiz]

Which was first, Mars or Earth??

Re:Which was first?

[clovis]

It doesn't matter, because they're gone and we're still here. We Won!
nyaaah nyaah dumb Martians picked the wrong planet.

Re: Which was first?

[Anonymous Coward]

If this is found to be true (and I could believe such a thing) then it would be damned near impossible to tell which planet life originated on, and it doesn't seem like it's overly important as the two worlds surfaces were quite similar chemically way back then.

Re:Which was first?

[Gherald]

nyaaah nyaah dumb Martians picked the wrong planet

Now if only my lucky streak had continued for parents... ;)

Re:Which was first?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which was first, Martian or Terranian??

Re:Which was first?

[zors]

People are awfully fond of pronouncing the death of religion, but they are almost never right. There are two ways that religion could survive this:

1-God created us, God created them.
2-Good old fashioned denial, e.g. creationism, age of the earth, flat world theory, and so on.

Never underestimate people's ability to suppress inconvenient realities.

Re:Which was first?

[Anonymous Coward]

mmmm, imagine a world without religion to hold us back.

Wasn't that Adolf Hitler's dream?

Re:Which was first?

[Anonymous Coward]

er, WTF are you talking about?

I think whether life exists on 1 or a million planets should matter very little to religion, western or eastern.

Religion (and God) speak to people in ways they can understand. This is why you have to read religious texts with their historical context in mind, whether it's the Old Testament or the Vedas.

If someone built their beliefs in such a way that evolution or life on other planets would ruin their spiritual foundation, then that's their problem.

Re:Which was first?

[kfg]

You are speaking of the so called "Western" religions ( of Asian origins, go figure).

Thus the third possibility is that various other "nonstandard" ( in the sense that only billions of people adhere to such relgions, just not typically those people in Detroit). Some of these religions have already made strong footholds, at least, in Europe and the United States. Buddhism is widespread enough among physicists that it hardly even raises an eyebrow any more (well, at least not both eyebrows).

And the fourth possibility is the rise of new relgions founded upon these new ideas.

People are adaptable, even if dogma is not.

Of course there's also the possibility that the answer to the question "who was first" is neither the Earth or Mars, that each was seeded from some third bit of interstellar dust carried across the winds of space and time that predates us both, and by a goodly margin.

Yeah, that'll give those of the Judeo/Christian/Ismalic bent something to chew over, and quite possibly deny. There are still plenty of Millerites in the world, and they like to let me know about it.

No, thank you much, I do not want to buy a Watchtower. Would you care to come in anyway though? We're about to sacrifice to Ramtha and your arrival may be taken as propicious.

Hey! Where ya goin'?

KFG

KFG

Re:Which was first?

[Anonymous Coward]

People like attacking straw men.

"Aha! If you thought this, you'd be sunk!"

Re:Which was first?

[AndroidCat]

It would be a lot easier for Mars rocks (and life) to get to Earth than vice-versa. Earth's gravity-well would require much more energy to splatter rocks around the solar system, eventually reaching Mars. Of course, if you're God, aliens, random-chance, Kibo, etc, and you have big planetoids to toss around, energy is not much of a problem. (How to blast Earth-life to Mars without killing everything might be tricky.)

Re:Which was first?

[Anonymous Coward]

Izz not over yet huuman!

Pasadina: What's that flare? See it? A green flare coming from Mars. Kind of a green mist behind it. It's getting closer. You see it, Burmuda? ...Come in, Burmuda! ...Houston, come in! What's going on... tracking station 43 Canberra, come in Canberra!... tracking station 63, can you hear me Madrid... can anybody hear me? Come in...! Come in...........!

Re:Which was first?

[NarrMaster]

Never underestimate people's ability to suppress inconvenient realities.

If I had mod points, I'd give you a +2: All too true.

Re:Which was first?

[HiredMan]

"I am personally convinced of the great power and deep significance of Christianity, and I won't allow any other religion to be promoted." -Hitler

Re:Which was first?

[iocat]

Ironically, since it's known for being fairly fuddy-duddy, the Catholic religion is offically fairly cool with both evolution and the big bang theory. They take the "it's all God's plan" attitude of the grandparent poster -- God created heaven and earth, and all the natural laws of the universe, that enabled us to be here, more or less.

It's not clear to me if this link is actually the official catechism of the Catholic church or just one person's analysis (and there's a lot near the end that I suspect most slashdotters will take issue with), but it gives an idea of how liberal the Catholic church's views on the subject are compared to say, fundementalist Christians.

Re:Which was first?

[kfg]

Hence the position of Vatican Astronomer, held by the Jesuit George Coyne, who states, "It's madness to believe that man is alone."

I suppose I could also point out that in like manner the views of most Islamics differ markedly from those of the fundamentalist sort, and there are plenty of Reformed Jews in the world, and that much of what we think we know about these religions comes to us not from the main line of thought but from those that their own contemporaries thought of as "extremist religious whack jobs."

KFG

Re:Which was first?

[modder]

I'm not trying to be a smart ass, but I know little about chemistry and I would like some clarification by someone who might know.

It seems to me like people are jumping to conclusions here. Isn't it possible that some other source, source C, was where these meteorites originated and then later collided with both earth and Mars?

The only thing which seems to not support this is
from the article:
"Micro-bubbles of gas trapped in dozens of meteorites found on Earth -- including Shergotty -- match the recipe of Martian atmosphere so closely that they must have originated on Mars."

But couldn't there be some other place (source C in my example above) which also has an atmosphere with such a "recipe".

Or are these atmospheric "recipes" that unique? (And if so, how was that determined?)

Re:Which was first?

[AndroidCat]

Also, how much has the Martian atmosphere changed over time? (Earth's certainly has, and there was life here before that blue-green algae started farting poisonous oxygen.) We need a better baseline on how Mars has changed over time.

Re:Which was first?

[Anonymous Coward]

hitler & the nazi's were pagan worshippers...

Re:Which was first?

[christurkel]

Mars is smaller than Earth and would have cooled first, allowing lakes and seas for form first.

Re:Which was first?

[DarkSarin]

You will recall, if you are Christian, that Christ himself was included in that group you mention so tenderly. Hence the reason that they crucified him.

Re:Which was first?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a Catholic with an interest in science. I trust the Church, and I trust science. It's true that proof of life on other worlds might throw some Christians into confusion, or make them retreat (further) into denial of legitimate science. But personally, I think it disrespectful to the Creator when we are afraid of looking too closely at the method of creation, for fear of contradicting Scripture. This is not a new idea: "If it happens that the authority of Sacred Scripture is set in opposition to clear and certain reasoning, this must mean that the person who interprets Scripture does not understand it correctly." - St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) Another Augustine quote Faith and Science

Re:Which was first?

[Penn121346]

can u please inform me where this quote is from? and where i can substantiate it.

Re:Which was first?

[JPriest]

Maybe we are what is left of the Martians and the earthlings have all been killed?

or
Little known fact #2145:
A human baby has not been born on this planet since 1993

Re:Which was first?

[Anonymous Coward]

Voltaire said something similar regarding the demise of religion. He predicted that the Bible would be extinct within a century of making his declaration. He died in 1778.

The problem is that religion and whether there is life on Mars are mutually exclusive. Neither has an impact on the other, despite what any atheist or Christian tells you.

Inconvenient realities? I don't think I'll have a humanist tell me about an inconvenient reality. The inconvenient reality of the humanist is that he cannot logically defend his beliefs as the way to live. You've simply chosen to place your faith in something else. I wish you the best of luck.

Re:Which was first?

[shadowbearer]

The Vatican learned a lot from the lesson of Galileo; even if it did take them until the 20th century to acknowledge so publicly. The Catholic church does seem to be keeping up with the times, however; contraception being one example of sorts...

I don't remember much of what I read about the origins of the Vatican Astronomer, tho; what was the reason for creating the position in the first place?

Christianity has fragmented so much that there are altogether too many whackies. Not really surprising, most authoritarian frames of mind tend to generate offshoots both more and less fanatical.

SB

Re:Which was first?

[Doomdark]

Actually, same (non-literal interpretation of Genesis story) goes for pretty much any non-fundamentalist christian group. At least all mainstream protestant groups are fairly ok with evolution as "implementation" of God's plans, and Genesis being story that was properly watered down by mr. G so that even ancient nomads could dig it.

Fundamentalist christians really are but minority in the world (or even amongst christians in general); many of them are loud and obnoxious in US, trying to leverage their zeal and energy to get more power to their "mission" (ie. pushing their ideals down others' throats)... but they are still minority, thank doG. :-)
Interestingly, though, there are plenty of less vocal christian fundamentalist groups, both in US and in european countries; folks like Amishes or luddite-like groups in scandinavia (don't own TVs, stay quite isolated from "non-believerers, but have no mission to convert "outsiders"). Those folks are generally easier to respect, because they walk the walk, without having to talk the talk; not vice versa.

Re:Which was first?

[shadowcabbit]

I'd like to jump in for a second here on the link you offered, and I'm willing to risk a whole three karma to do it (yeah, big risk, but who really cares). I noticed you put in your post the following advice regarding the link:

(and there's a lot near the end that I suspect most slashdotters will take issue with)

I realize I probably don't fit the profile of "most slashdotters", but frankly I don't see much of a problem here. I was raised Catholic, true, and have found myself doubting that faith as an agnostic seeker; but to be perfectly honest the link makes a compelling argument for the existence of [a/some/many/the one true/whatever] God.

It's probably not Catholic canon, to be sure, but the works cited in the article-- from Augustine to Darwin-- are enough for anyone to read for themselves and come to their own conclusions. Some people might say that it was merely luck that humans evolved in the way that they did-- that there was no divine force guiding the mutation and development of the unique characteristics that make a human a human. To this I say, "Well, if I have to prove to you there is a God, you have to prove to me there isn't." There is no evidence either for or against the existence of such a force-- certainly the odds are astronomical, but the greater the odds, the more likely it seems less of a coincidence and more of an intent.

Also, the bit about the soul simply not being possible in evolution also sits well with me. If evolution could have created humans exactly as they are now without the need for a creator's touch, what need would we have for the creator? It is my belief that when the creator (who or whatever that may be) saw that humanity was as developed as it was going to get naturally, this creator imbued the race with the spark of intellect-- a touch of the divine, if you will.

My beliefs are my own. You may or may not find truth in them, and frankly it's none of my business whether or not you do. I just thought I ought to thank you for giving me the opportunity to air that out a little bit. Oh, and I'll definitely be passing this link along to one of my old professors-- he's a Catholic priest and very much into this sort of thing.

Re:Which was first?

[NortWind]

The "recipe" for meteorite identification usually includes the ratio of oxygen isotopes. This ratio varies as you head away from the Sun. So, if you can identify the ratio, you can match pebble A to pebble B (or planet B) fairly well.

Re:Which was first?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm curious...which of Christ's teachings would have been consistent with Hitler's actions?

Not only is your "quote" incorrect (Hitler was not a Christian), but it reeks of simplistic stupidity.

Re:Which was first?

[Anonymous Coward]

With Galileo, it wasn't him saying that the Earth revolved around the Sun that got him into trouble, it was him portraying a representitive of the Church in his writings as an idiot that did it. The Church has gotten a bad rap when it comes to science that is not deserved.

Re:Which was first?

[shadowcabbit]

Oh yeah, and a quick Google scan of the Vatican's web site shows that the Catechism of the Catholic Church says nothing about evolution, but a document from 1998 (here) seems to suggest what you and I have gone over-- that evolution happened but God (/Fate/Time/Whatever) either initiated or intervened in the process.

Re:Which was first?

[roror]

But couldn't there be some other place (source C in my example above) which also has an atmosphere with such a "recipe".

aha, the possibility of two worlds Mars and C having the same atmospheric recipe would be much less likely (unless Mars was a spin off of C) than the possibility of a few rock pores containing air similiar in composition to that of Mars (might have been knocked off Mars by some stray meteor).

Re:Which was first?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why when he invaded Poland he quickly started tearing down churches and executing priests...

Re:Which was first?

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, demand to know exactly who our new overlords are!!!

Re:Which was first?

[ScurvyDawg]

Can a negative be proven?

How can I prove is not something?

I can show is there is something if what I am looking for is there but I can not prove it is not there or never was. Can I?

Re:Which was first?

[shadowbearer]

WRT to Galileo, true (to an extent! there were a lot of bishops who wanted Galileo burned), but the church still did not issue a formal apology/acknowledgement of his work until just a few years ago. (don't remember when it was exactly now, but not that long ago).

One might also think on the fact that Galileo's findings - and he was vocal about them, as he should have been - were in direct conflict with the church teachings at the time; so there is no way he could have avoided censure of one kind or another. (A lesson that could also be applied to our times with different subjects and different players, nay?)

I was actually more impressed by the acknowledgement by the Catholic church that condoms were perhaps not a bad idea, after all. Of course if this had come before nasty STDs such as HIV were becoming a really serious and widespread medical problem, it might have been more of an indication of real tolerance rather than forced recognition of reality. But at least they went that far. Shows that someone there is thinking.

I'm not religious, tho raised so; but I'll admit that the Catholic church is one of the more enlightened in matters of science. I personally consider it penance for past transgressions. :)

SB

Re:Which was first?

[Afrosheen]

I've had a feeling that the true history of humankind, and most of the early biblical events, took place on Mars or another planet. Not until you reach Noah's Ark do you begin the Earth section.

Noah's Ark, in my theory, is an allegory to a spaceship fitted for colonization of a foreign planet. You bring paired species to repopulate another world. Taken literally, this falls flat on it's face, because genetic diversity of most higher species wouldn't be great enough to support more than 2 generations, 3 with simpler organisms. Serious genetic defects emerge in humans in only the second generation (first generation being two non-related individuals). However, taken more loosely (which the majority of the bible should be anyway), it's somewhat feasible.

Re:Which was first?

[AndroidCat]

You are, number six.

Re:Which was first?

[Anonymous Coward]

Naw, they crucified him because the kikes told them to. Didn't you watch The Passions of the Christ like all the other sheeple in America?

Re:Which was first?

[Afrosheen]

That's feasible in my estimation. The best creator would be one that creates self-sustaining systems that grow and evolve by themselves over time. Creating things one by one would be a major pain in the ass. Building a machine (earth) with all the ingredients to create more life in and of itself, along with all the interdependent systems required to sustain life, would be the most challenging creation of all. Consider the fact that many generations of literally millions of creatures have come and gone based on a complex ruleset of survival, variable environmental factors, etc. Some have killed others off, some have inherited niches that are extremely specific (sea vent worm tubes, deep sea shrimp, etc.). The variety, breadth and depth of life on this planet is staggering.

Perhaps God created this big ant farm we live in but not us?

Re:Which was first?

[Creedo]

"One might also think on the fact that Galileo's findings - and he was vocal about them, as he should have been - were in direct conflict with the church teachings at the time;"

Nope. Remember, Copernicus taught essentially the same thing, and was never condemned.

"I was actually more impressed by the acknowledgement by the Catholic church that condoms were perhaps not a bad idea, after all."

That would be news to me, if it were true. Got a reference?

Re:Which was first?

[Trolling4Dollars]

Yes. You are absolutely correct. That place was Babylon 5.

Re:Which was first?

[shadowbearer]

No, I don't.

But I distinctly remember, about 10 years ago or so, the Vatican issuing a statement that condoms might be a viable option in preventing STD propogation; I can't find a link to it, now.

Maybe I'm nut, but I don't think so, I remember discussing this with a lot of people on usenet.

Guess I need to play catchup with google; I don't think my memory is faulty, but it's happened before.

Copernicus didn't live in the same era :) The church was a lot more powerful during Galileo's time.

Cheers!
'nite
SB

Re:Which was first?

[kfg]

No, Copernicus did not teach much the same thing, except to a very few close friends, and more to the point Copernicus refused to publish until after he was dead.

Galileo escaped the wrath of the inquisition because what he was actually accused and convicted of was violation of the Papal order that he not publish his views, which he subsequently did (a nifty little lifesaving legal device arranged by virtue of the Pope being a long time friend).

Had he been convicted of heresy, as most people believe, those who wished to see him dead would have had their way.

This is also what allows the church to admit that his views were right without officially contradicting itself, his conviction having nothing to do with the accuracy of those views, or even expressing them verbally if it comes to that.

The Pope ordered him not to publish, he published, he was, and still remains, absolutely guilty of his crime, just as, say, Gandhi was absolutely guilty of his and Thoreau of his own.

There isn't necessarily any shame in being a rightly accused and convicted felon. At the very least you keep some good company.

KFG

Re:Which was first?

[blincoln]

I've had a feeling that the true history of humankind, and most of the early biblical events, took place on Mars or another planet.

This is an idea I've heard before, but I can't see it making sense. There's evidence of life on earth (including our ancestors) for millions of years. The Bible was only written a few thousand ago. Do you think that our chimpanzee-esque forebearers preserved the history orally all of that time?

Re:Which was first?

[Graff]

I'm not trying to be a smart ass, but I know little about chemistry and I would like some clarification by someone who might know.

It seems to me like people are jumping to conclusions here. Isn't it possible that some other source, source C, was where these meteorites originated and then later collided with both earth and Mars?

Yes, it certainly is possible. However it is unlikely. The sort of analysis that goes into determining the source of origin of a rock is fairly accurate. There are a number of factors which are taken into account which, when combined, form a fairly unique "fingerprint" as to the origin of a piece of rock.

First of all, there is the relative amounts of elements. Mars has a different elemental mix than the Earth due to its distance from the Sun, its mass, the loss of atmosphere and water, among many other factors. Then there is the different proportions of isotopes of each element. Earth, partially due to the shielding afforded by its atmosphere and its magnetic field, has a different mix of isotopes of each element. Remember that each element often has 2 or 3 common isotopes, this significantly contributes to the complexity of the fingerprint.

Then there are differences in rock formation between Mars and the Earth. Rocks formed on Mars have gone through a different history of sedimentation, melting, crystallization, weathering, etc. than those formed on Earth. This results in not only different minerals being formed but also the patterns of how these minerals mix and the relative proportions that one mineral may be found in a mixture with others.

I'm probably missing a few other factors but you get the idea. Remember that the process of identifying rocks is not only used to tell if a rock is from Mars or the Earth but it is also accurate enough to possibly be used to tell if a rock is from near Moscow or from near Los Angeles. Scientists can get a fairly good idea of where on the Earth a diamond or a piece of uranium originated simply by using some of these techniques. Analysis of the isotope ratios alone is a strong indicator.

Re:Which was first?

[SonicBurst]

At 11:52 PM you said:

but they are still minority, thank doG. :-)

So I take it you're the agnostic and dyslexic insomniac I've been hearing about lately....

Re:Which was first?

[Aidos]

What? Genetic diversity of most higher species? Ah I see, logic fals to BLIND faith doesn't it.

Re:Which was first?

[Aidos]

Re: Luck that we (as humans) evolved the way we did. Not so much luck as the fact that we did evolve the way we did predefines the way we view our own evolution. We have conciousness, which as far as we can tell, makes us a unique lifeform. It is far wasier for us to believe that we are unique and an endpoint for evolution than to face the fact that we are simply a current branch on the bush of lives ever evolving creation. Our very notions of (misguided) uniqueness are a filter that clouds our judgement.

Re:Which was first?

[JPriest]

I have also heard people make claims that the Arch was an attempt by aliens to show humans electricity before they were ready to understand it. How do you really know that many early supernatural claims and prophets were not really communicating with alien life?

Re:Which was first?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is this fals you speak of? I've not heard of that one before.

Please fuck off and die you stupid goddamned wanker.

There's a button marked "preview" which you should certainly be using for a 1 line post.

And everyone should go and download the theme for Air Wolf right now - its fucking brilliant.

Re:Which was first?

[kfg]

No, if I were a Christian I would recall that he was crucified because that was God's plan for him, to be blood sacrifice for us all, for as the Bible tells us God demands blood sacrifice.

Which must have brought a sigh of relief from all the goats and oxen.

And thus there is no blame to be assigned for his crucifiction, unless you want to take it up directly with God or something.

If you are not a Christian you can certainly be excused (as far as I'm concerned at least, for whatever that's worth) from not recalling that though.

Nor was he an extremest whack job. Those sort didn't bear crucifying because they were so obviously whack jobs that it was safe to simply ignore them, because just about everybody else did, thus they were no political threat.

Now Ezekiel, there was a guy who had spent too much time out in the desert living off some rather dubious mushrooms.

KFG

Re:Which was first?

[Anonymous Coward]

The chicken of course.

Re:Which was first?

[djplurvert]

To this I say, "Well, if I have to prove to you there is a God, you have to prove to me there isn't."

This is a logical fallacy often made by christians. While there are many "strong athiests" who would argue that god doesn't exist, Christians cannot avoid defending an assertion because others do. The vast majority of athiests might be called agnostic by some, but whichever word you use the result is essentiall the same.

One can make an assertion that god exists.
One can make an assertion that god doesn't exist.
One can make neither assertion.

The third choice is the only one that does not require defense. As a christian, of almost any sort, you cannot avoid the burden of proof that is on you. Christians cannot claim the third choice. If you claim to see god in the trees and the beauty of the world, you are making the agnostic argument and you are a nonbeliever. If you pray, you are a believer. If you believe in the supernatural, e.g. the soul, you are a believer.

Believers, make an assertion that god exists. Thus, they have an obligation to prove god exists. Many, if not most nonbelievers either make no such assertion, or make a more restricted version of the assertion. A more restricted assertion for example might be "there is no omnicient, omnipresent, omnipotent being". More importantly if one says "I do not believe in god", it is fair to be claiming the third assertion. One can fairly rephrase that "I make no assertion that god exists." Therefore, there is no defense of this position necessary.

Finally, proof is a strong word, and something no believer has come close to developing. Perhaps try developing some evidence first. Or, perhaps even just a simple observable test. Perhaps instead of trying to defend such a large assertion, why not start with a smaller one like one of these:

Can god hear prayers?
Does he have ears to hear them?
Does he hear all of them, or just some?
Do saints talk to god?
If so, does god need saints to talk to him?
Where is heaven?
Can god make a triangle with four sides?

yada yada yada

The point of course, is that these are not the assertions of some fringe element of christianity, but rather, the mainstream. I assert none of the above, if you assert any of it, then the burden of proof is on you.

plurvert

Re:Which was first?

[handslikesnakes]

Yep, your beliefs are your own. Of course, if you spout them without any sort of backing beyond your own belief, I hope you aren't surprised when people point out that you're crazier than a Scientologist.

Re:Which was first?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell yeah, i used to hum that shit on my bicycle way back when i was a nappyheaded youth. Also of note in the version of the song for the NES sound core, which is of course found at the title screen of Air Wolf for NES.

Re:Which was first?

[uhlume]

I find it a little troubling that the first reference to this quote yielded by my admittedly cursory Googling lies in Smokescreens , an online "book" by Jack Chick (of Chick Tract fame) in which he denigrates Catholics and Catholicism -- in part by attempting to establish a sinister relationship between the Roman Catholic Church and the Nazis.

Now, I don't know what that says for the validity of the quote, but I personally take it as dogma that anything Jack Chick embraces is automatically suspect, if not outright wrong. Much as I may occasionally enjoy lambasting some of the baser forms of Christianity, I'm not prepared to do it with any assistance from a hystrionic hatemonger like Chick.

Re:Which was first?

[djplurvert]

Of course I meant atheists.

Re:Which was first?

[Anonymous Coward]

The 1917 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia found at newadvent.org is pretty orthodox. I dont know if every article is signed and sealed so to speak, but it is a very trusted and reliable source for information about the Catholic faith.

Re:Which was first?

[shrykk]

My little brother shows all the signs of humanity... just about.

Re:Which was first?

[dirt_puppy]

Actually, they are pretty much unique. Usually, in such examinations, they measure the noble gases, since they won't react away with the surrounding rock. Lets assume the measurement is 0.1% Accurate, which would be a conservative estimate. Lets further assume that we completely rule out concentrations above 10%. Now we take 1e-2 (0.1%*10 = chance of measurements being alike) to the power of 4 (radon isnt stable, and lets say that one of the noble gases isnt suitable for our examination in some way), that leaves you with a chance of 1e-8 for two measurments to be alike. Thats about a lottery win.

Good Luck.

Re:Which was first?

[Anonymous Coward]

However, the one import thing that can mess with relative isotope concentrations is life itself.

Since I'm a plant biologist i give to examples:
Rubisco, an important enzyme for fotosynthesis, has a preference for lighter isotopes, thus it will carboxylate C-12 in preference to C-13 (and 14).

Heavy Oxygen (what we were discussing) isotopes transpire more slowly from a plant leaf than light oxygen isotopes. Changing the ratio of oxygen isotopes in organic tissues.

Now, I'm not saying you cannot use the gas in air bubbles to see where the rocks come from, I have no idea how much effect these processes have on the isotope ratios in the atmosphere. But you have to keep in might that if they came from a planet infested with life, it may have a slightly different isotope concentration that expected.

Re:Which was first?

[Magickcat]

I went to a Catholic De La Salle College, and we were taught the theory of evolution and Big Bang Theory etc. Most Catholics don't hold that Genesis is a literal truth, as to do so would really be terribly naive. Our geography and science teachers loved laughing about fundamentalist science theories.

We were told that the Father God was the creator of the universe, and the actual scientific laws of the universe were a result of the actual act of creation.

Fundamentalism was produced by the various Lutheran faiths, and so is not considered orthodoxy.

In the same way, we were told that what Jesus called "demons" were most likely epilepsy or a mental condition. We were told that Jesus' view was merely that of a man of the time when it came to his view of the world. We were not taught that Jesus was omnipotent or anything like what some Christian faiths adhere to. In the same way, we were taught that the Bible was written by men inspired by God, but it wasn't the literal word of God at all, just a history of it.

Catholic theologians have had a long time to accept Science and in my view, has embraced it. After all, despite it's problems with it at first, it has made some degree of effort to move with it.

Re:Which was first?

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, thanks for all the replies.

I'm still confused as to why a "football shaped" rock, which seemed out of place with the other martian rocks, matches this "fingerprint" of meteorites which have landed on earth and therefore rocks came to earth from mars. And all this because the "fingerprint" matches the "recipe" of the martian atmosphere.

So do all of the other rocks on mars not match the "recipe" for martian atmosphere?

Couldn't there just perhaps be some other (maybe very large) meteoroid (or other giant floating rock of some sort) which has a similar atmospheric "recipe" that broke into pieces for and then showered on to a bunch of planets in our solar system?

Everyone is saying this is unlikely, but I'm thinking it's a lot more likely than something hitting mars and sending this debris to earth. (I'm actually wondering why people aren't saying a volcano on mars was the cause of this. I'd buy that way before I'd buy the former explaination.)

And frankly, I'm getting sick of all of this initial speculation which is (should we play statistics again?) likely to be disproven in the coming decades and centuries.

Granted it helps NASA funding, and that should be done. We need to fund this research. But can we stop drawing unfounded conclusions please?

Re:Which was first?

[mbone]

The Viking Landers carried, during their descent, mass spectrometers which sampled the Martian atmosphere on the way down. These provided our only measurements of Martian atmosphere isotope ratios to date.

It turns out that isotope ratios tell you a lot about the history of an atmosphere, as different isotopes get lost at different rates by different mechanisms.

The gas isotope ratios in these meteorites are unique to Mars, as measured by Viking. There are many other indications (most meteorites can be traced back to specific asteroid "families", these cannot, etc.), but it was the gas isotope ratios that were convincing.

I saw a debate about this in Paris back in 1985. The "non-Martian" advocate finally had to concede that these meteorites had to come from a planet very much like Mars in its size and history, and distance from the Sun, and were too new to come from any disrupted planet, so basically the only possible source was Mars.

Re:Which was first?

[NoTheory]

uh, no? :p
Hitler's plan was supposed to be harmonious with catholicism.

Hitler heavily used mythologies and other superstitions to drum up the belief that the jewish and others were inherently inferior, and the germans were the aryan super-race.

Nietzsche on the other hand... (who people credit the concept of the ubermensch) his whole point was stepping "beyond good and evil." Which was a ridiculous endevour, because it a) fails to actually escape moralism and b) enabled psychopaths like the nazis.

Re:Which was first?

[Oligonicella]

"The inconvenient reality of the humanist is that he cannot logically defend his beliefs as the way to live."

Right. You've probably not sat and talked with one. I certainly can logically defend them.

Re:Which was first?

[Oligonicella]

"We have conciousness, which as far as we can tell, makes us a unique lifeform."

Your argument fails there. We are not the only possessors of conciousness on Earth.

Depending on what you meant by "wasier", I'd agree with the rest.

Re:Which was first?

[shadowcabbit]

Exactly. I was hoping someone would catch that. (True, I started hoping it about ten seconds after I hit submit and realized I stupidly left that in there, but still.) Either assertion requires proof, proof or evidence that humanity in its current state cannot provide.

This raises another question: If humanity in its current state cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, why? There are of course three options:

A) God has somehow prevented humans from discovering proof and by extension him.
B) There is no god and humans are wasting their time searching for one.
C) Humans may be as physically advanced as they can be, but must develop further intellectually and mentally in order to understand whatever proof/disproof may exist currently.

Option A is pretty ridiculous. It presupposes the existence of God to give a reason why we can't discover God; but if we know God stops us from knowing God, then we know of God and the rule backfires-- we have 'proof', but not a real proof.

Option B is something some people can assert, but again, it requires a fair amount of evidence to back it up. Evidence which, by the nature of the question, cannot or does not exist ("is there evidence for or against god?" "no, because we have no evidence of god").

Option C requires a little bit of faith-- on both sides. Theists (not just Christians, mind you) need to believe that humanity, while at the pinnacle of their physical development ("in god's image", so to speak), still have some ways to go, mentally, to be the perfect creation that god intended them to be. Atheists need to believe that the human mind can still develop beyond what it is capable of understanding now, and that at one point humanity will be able to understand and decipher more of the universe's secrets. In both cases there's evidence that these leaps forward in thought have occurred (chaos theory, nuclear physics, etc.).

I suppose the best and most valid answer to "Is there a God?" could be a simple "I don't know [, but I believe...]." Or probably, if you want to be more optimistic about it, "Well, I don't know yet. Wait and see."

Re:Which was first?

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't have much evidence of a civilization pre-Egyptian times, do we. Did it just 'spring' up just like that?

I wonder...
I think pre-Noah times were on Mars and then the Ark was a spacecraft which came to earth.

Re:Which was first?

[BerntB]

If humanity in its current state cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, why?

(a) Well, you have the intellectually honesty position -- to not believe things without good reasons to hold them for true.

(b) Read Bertrand Russel's "History of Western Philosophy", the chapter on Roussau.

He argues that until Rousseau, the standard position was that enough research would prove the existence of ghod (the christian one -- not one of all the others!). According to Russel, the no-need-for-proof position is quite new and came after reason-based analysis started to criticize the church's positions.

So your option "C" is an ad-hoc theory... not good for probability!

(c) Then you have the problem with all the contradicting faiths (at most, a small subset of all religions can be true) where believers have very similar psychology and strength of faith. This similarity is a problem because:

1) Some devil is able to inspire the same religious feelings as the one true god.
2) There is a psychological need of religion in some people -- evolution of a social cohesive. probably.
3) God inspired all the contradicting faiths -- and lied to some believers??

As far as I know, all religions deny the possibility of 1 or 3 to be true.

(d) No, I'm not going to spend time on the hilariousness of divinely inspired, absolutely true, facts about the world and how to live our life -- that are continously updated every 2-3 generations! (Read Russel's "Why I'm not a christian", first the chapter on Paine and why he became really hated for opinions that was standard among bishops in Russel's 30s -- and then the chapter on the English clergy, compare that to today. No need to discuss Bruno or Galileo.)

Re:Which was first?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't see the bible making sense. Period.

Re:Which was first?

[MyHair]

If you claim to see god in the trees and the beauty of the world, you are making the agnostic argument and you are a nonbeliever. If you pray, you are a believer.

I do both. What does that make me?

God I can handle. Churches and religion I find too pushy, hypocritical and self-righteous.

Re:Which was first?

[Cobralisk]

The history of the race, and each individual's experience, are thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.
-Mark Twain

Re:Which was first?

[Tablizer]

I've had a feeling that the true history of humankind, and most of the early biblical events, took place on Mars or another planet.

Yeah, some tried hitching a ride on comet Hale-Bopp to return.

BTW, after that event I saw a bumper sticker that read, "So many idiots, so few comets".

It is interesting that there are not more religions with beliefs and scriptures about events taking place on many other planets. Sure, some mention a planet or two, but none seem to have lots of stories ("history") that takes place on other planets.

Re:Which was first?

[Tablizer]

Yes. You are absolutely correct. That place was Babylon 5.

You mean Babble-on 5 :-P

Re:Which was first?

[djplurvert]

Insert the word only before the word see. Now, do you still hold that position? Then what are you praying to?

Christians frequently try to use that position to avoid the truth that they really believe god is an "actual being." I suspect you are also. Christians cannot deny that they believe in the supernatural by suggesting that their position is congruent with the agnostic one. If you pray then either you believe god is a being in some sense of the word and that he/she/it can hear you in some way, or, you are just praying to the trees.

If you are praying to the trees you either believe the trees can hear you, in which case you're a nutjob. Or, you recognize that prayer is nothing more than self programming, in which case you are an agnostic.

I think few atheists will deny that prayer has real affect on humans. But not in the way believers would like. The affects are merely psychological.

Of course when I say agnostic I mean someone that asserts no belief in god. Most christians would consider that person to hold the atheist position.

If you are an agnostic and then become a christian, I doubt you were ever agnostic. A true agnostic doesn't see any evidence FOR god. Since we haven't had any plagues of locusts or sweeping unexplainable deaths yada yada yada, there is no new "testable" evidence that god exists, thus no reason to change ones position from agnostic to believer. Evidence, must be testable, it isn't personal. One cannot claim they realized god exists without presenting evidence that can be tested. If that is your position, then you didn't have a stance on the issue that was intellectually defendable. You were, by definition, a believer when you were claiming the agnostic position if you think that all that is required to switch is faith.

I find it hilarious how so many christians can interpret the agnostic postition as one that just needs a little more coaxing.

plurvet

Re:Which was first?

[Anonymous Coward]

The humanist has to appeal to an objective view of reality, which he doesn't have. His disbelief in there even BEING an objective view of reality (i.e. God, Allah, whatever) makes his own worldview undefendable within a logical context.

Can a humanist live morally? Absolutely, and many have. Can a humanist justify his way of life logically? No.

Re:Which was first?

[macdaddy357]

To finally conclude this religious debate, click here for a Holy message from The Lord. Make sure to watch it through to the end, or you will miss the point.

Re:Which was first?

[It'sYerMam]

Mass spectrometers can work out from which oil field a few molecules of the stuff came from - I think that if they used them, then we can be pretty sure of accurate data.

Re:Which was first?

[rpj1288]

I went to a Catholic grammer school, where we were taught evolution and how it fit into the Genesis story. It seemed to fit, because after all, we were always told that the Bible was mostly stories to be interpreted. There was even a way in for religion into Cell Theory. If all cells came from other cells, where did the first cell come from?

Re:Which was first?

[djplurvert]

Option B is something some people can assert, but again, it requires a fair amount of evidence to back it up. Evidence which, by the nature of the question, cannot or does not exist ("is there evidence for or against god?" "no, because we have no evidence of god").

Don't twist my words. I'm not coming down on the politically correct side of "every position is equal and one can't really know". I am criticising theist's, and primarily christian beliefs. The evidence that god exists or doesn't exist are not equivalent in terms of necessary evidence.

There is so much contradiction in the bible in regards to what are the attributes of god that one hardly knows where to begin.

My point was that christians DO assert god exists and must defend their position and yet christians can't successfully defend even the tiniest subset of their beliefs without resorting to the "f" word.

B) There is no god and humans are wasting their time searching for one.

Allow me to suggest an alternative. Suppose there is a god (this is a thought experiment, not a statement of position), what evidence do you have that requires people even spend any time thinking about him/it. I love how believers project an immature human psyche on god. Don't you think that if you could create something as fantastic as the universe that you could probably get along ok without the insipid worship of humans.

In other words, humans could be wasting their time even if god does exist. No religious belief system has any evidence that their view is right and others are wrong. What if all earthly religions are the work of satan? If you believe satan has the power to affect people's lives then you have to concede this as a possiblity. Then EVERY believer on the planet is doomed to a burn in hell for eternity.

If god is the most intelligent thing in existence, then don't you think god would respect critical thought, otherwise, why would he have given us the ability to think. It then follows that the people that god would choose would be those that think critically and choose not to accept him without evidence of his existence. Thus, heaven is full of atheists and agnostics.

I have NEVER met a christian who could successfully defend his beliefs without resorting to the "f" word. In all cases, defense comes down to faith or the casting of doubt. I can use those same arguments to prove the existence of anything, including santa claus, or that christian favorite, satan.

plurvert

Re:Which was first?

[MyHair]

Insert the word only before the word see. Now, do you still hold that position? Then what are you praying to?

I haven't analyzed it that closely; ultimately I don't know what/who God is. It's beyond me. I just generally accept there's more in existence than I will ever comprehend. I see no point in deciding whether God is a being, concept or whatnot. I have yet to meet another person who I trust or believe in enough to tell me that.

I don't know who I'm praying to. Well, God, but who's God? Maybe my praying is just wishful thinking, maybe it's mental masturbation, maybe it's a meditation. I don't spend much time worrying about it now; I figure I'll eventually find out or cease existing, so it works out either way.

If you are praying to the trees you either believe the trees can hear you, in which case you're a nutjob.

So if I believe I can pray to trees that listen to me I'm a nutjob, but I'm not a nutjob if I pray to a being I can't see or hear who created everything because of some intangible part of me that will live on after my biological death? I'm not arguing with you either way, I just find these kind of arguments funny, and most religious discussions are like this to me. Actually, my being a nutjob would explain a lot, like why I pray without really understanding who/what I'm praying to or whether it makes a difference.

If you are an agnostic and then become a christian, I doubt you were ever agnostic.

You are much heavier into defining Christian and agnostic than I. I generally don't discuss religion because everyone has such strong opinions (I live in the Bible Belt). Whether I describe myself as Christian or agnostic really depends on who I'm talking to and what I think it means to them. If I cared, I'd probably tell a fundamentalist Christian that I'm agnostic to avoid finer points of debate; I'd probably tell an atheist I'm a Christian not to inspire debate but to separate myself from his strong declaration that there is no God.

I guess I could be called a spiritual waffler, but really I just don't usually care much to discuss--and certainly not to evangelize--my spirituality and am more or less comfortable with it. I responded to you because I enjoyed the irony of my fitting both and neither of your descriptions for agnostic and Christian.

I find it hilarious how so many christians can interpret the agnostic postition as one that just needs a little more coaxing.

I don't. Organized religion from my point of view is a search for personal validation. It's easier to feel validated by God if all the people around you share the same ideas about God. It only makes sense that they would shun those who adamantly oppose their views but try to assimilate those whose views fall between them and their opponents.

Note the irony in the above paragraph that people search for validation from God through rallying with like-minded human mortals. Go figure. It reminds me of the joke about Unitarians: They believe that if you know enough you'll go to heaven.

This is the problem I have with church and religion as I see it implemented: It's all about humans telling other humans what to think and do. It's the same as any other power structure or clique. I resent that in general (but not on the basis of divine sanction, which goes back to the original argument, in which if you'll notice I'm not participating).

Re:Which was first?

[HiredMan]

I'll look for the exact source - but if you doubt the sentiment expressed - don't...

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

National Socialism has always affirmed that it is determined to take the Christian Churches under the protection of the State.... The decisive factor which can justify the existence alike of Church and State is the maintenance of men's spiritual and bodily health, for it that health were destroyed it would mean the end of the State and also the end of the Church.... It is my sincere hope that thereby for Germany, too, through free agreement there has been produced a final clarification of spheres in the functions of the State and of one Church.
-Adolf Hitler, on a wireless on 22 July, the evening before the Evangelical Church Election

Imbued with the desire to secure for the German people the great religious, moral, and cultural values rooted in the two Christian Confessions, we have abolished the political organizations but strengthened the religious institutions.
-Adolf Hitler, speaking in the Reichstag on 30 Jan. 1934

Found it. The quote is from Helmreich, Ernst Christian "The German Churches Under Hitler," Wayne State University Press, 1979
The entire quote is:

I am absolutely convinced of the great power and the deep significance of the Christian religion, and consequently will not permit any other founders of religion (Religionsstifter). Therefore I have turned against Ludendoriff and separated myself from him; therefore I reject Rosenberg's book. That book is written by a Protestant. It is not a party book. It is not written by him as a member of the party. The Protestants can settle matters with him.
My desire is that no confessional conflict arise. I must act correctly to both confessions. I will not tolerate a Kulturkampf.... I stand by my word. I will protect the rights and freedom of the church and will not permit them to be touched. You need have no apprehensions concerning the freedom of the church.
-Hitler [quoted from Helmreich, p.241]

I don't have a copy to check his source but he is noted author (with many historical books covering other topics) and the book is printed by an actual university press (Wayne State) and is not self published or any crap like that.

From the actual text of Hitler's speeches you can see that the sentiment isn't far from his other comments on Christianity. To contend that Hitler wanted a world free from religion is ridiculous. He saw the Christian church as his source of inspiraton and strength and thought it was important for the nation as well.

=tkk

P.S. If you think quotes lie and would rather have pictures of Hitler greeting cardinals and bishops giving the Nazi salute those are available as well.

Re:Which was first?

[djplurvert]

Of course you realize that you don't fit both descriptions and there is no irony.

In regards to agnosticism, you missed my point, the agnostic's views do not fall between atheist and christian. There is essentially no real difference between atheist and agnostic beliefs from the christian perspective. The assimilation is attempted because christians don't understand what agnosticism is. So, if you think that it's valid for christians to attempt this, then you are asserting that christians are unable to think about the definitions of the very ideas they are critical of.

The rest of what you have to say is meaningless. Beliefs that are without a clear path to making them knowledge are the waste dump of the human psyche.

plurvert

Re:Which was first?

[Jagasian]

Actually, the story of Noah and the ark was stolen from earlier Sumerian works. It turns out that thousands of years ago, in Sumer (Iran/Iraq), there was a big civilization and problems with floods. One of the floods was really bad, and a guy had build a boat to save himself, some livestock, and his family.

Filter this through word of mouth, retranslation, transliteration, etc... and you end up with Noah and the Ark. Just google "Noah Ark Sumerian" for more info. There are even ancient clay tablets that contain the original flood story. Also note that Sumer was eventually conquered/replaced by the Babylonians.

Re:Which was first?

[Jagasian]

I am not a number. I am a free man!

Re:Which was first?

[Afrosheen]

Well the fossil record preserves much of earth history pre-humans, but the fact remains that humans, in our present iteration, haven't been around very long relative to the age of the planet. The human race surely hasn't been around "millions of years". At best we've been here as Homo Sapiens Sapiens for around 130,000 years. Anything that predates what we've found to be historical evidence of past civilizations is usually fiction.

Re:Which was first?

[Afrosheen]

That might have something to do with the fact that modern astronomy and the study of heavenly bodies is a relatively new science. We had no concept of 'planets' a few hundred years ago. The Aztecs and other ancient cultures that studied the stars were awestruck by the complexity of what they found and utilized it for accurate calendars. Still, until we began to develop high powered telescopes and theorize about how things in space work, we had no reason to pursue space as more than a curiousity. Hence it never really made it into any established religions.

Re:Which was first?

[mehitabel]

a meteorite impact on mars (or earth) could eject sizable rocks into space. there's not a lot of doubt about this. a 1.7 km wide boulder screaming into earth at roughly 1/1000 the speed of light would make an estimated impact equivalant to a 100,000 megaton explosion. this would destroy a land area the size of California. collisions of this magnitude are thought to occur every hundred million years or so, and more frequently in the earliest history of earth. these are "small". the K/T event that many (with good evidence) believe ended the dinosaurs is estimated to have been a 10-20km rock that made the oceans boil and ejected huge amounts of material into low-earth orbit (and therefore faster bits could escape). in contrast, the largest volcanic eruption in the history of earth is thought to be Fish Canyon, where 28 million years ago more than 5000 cubic km of magma was ejected with a force of maybe a few thousand megatons. this is enough material to cover california like 12m deep, but most stuff goes sideways not up, and the plume of such an event would not likley reach higher than the stratosphere (i.e. not reach orbit, let alone escape orbit). granted, mars has bigger volcanoes, lower gravity, etc. nonetheless, I guess all I'm trying to say is that I think volcanoes ejecting rocks into space is orders of magnitude unlikely or at least far less likely than meteorites, which we think knock lots of stuff into space. this is probably why hollywood has come out with a lot more meteor-impact end-of-the-world scenarios (a la "Deep Impact", "Armageddon"), but "Volcano" only destroyed L.A. ;) a good paper: N. H. Sleep, K. Zahnle. "Refugia from asteroid impacts on early Mars and the early earth." Journal of Geophysical Research. vol 103, No. E12, p. 529 (1998). some of the other numbers: http://www.nineplanets.org/meteorites.html http://www.decadevolcano.net/photos/keywords/calde ra.htm

Re:Which was first?

[u-235-sentinel]

OT but it might interest you to know that if you google Noah Ark and flood you might find more information than a local problem in that region.

Water was tested in both the Gulf of Mexico and Indian Ocean for salinity. They apprarently discovered about the same time on both sides of the world a sudden drop. It wasn't a slight drop either. It was a major drop.

I'm thinking something must have happened on a global scale for this to happen. IANAS (I am not a scientist) however I don't believe on coincidence.

Re:Which was first?

[TyrranzzX]

Or mabye, just mabye, the stories and wisdom were passed down from generation to generation and the bible was constructed out of similar stories? It's not hard to write a moral story ya know, even 2000 years ago. It might be that we are the martians. I'v also heard theories about how mabye the martians found some apes and said "w000, now lookie at that thing, lets bioengineer it!" and then wrote the bible to help it along, then fucked off into the universe.

Re:Which was first?

[Squiffy]

+5 Something, I'm Not Sure What. You said exactly what I was thinking except for the Air Wolf thing, which surprised me but is true nonetheless.

However, I must point out that you put "its" where you should have put "it's", making you equally guilty of failing to proofread your post.

And everyone really should go and download the Air Wolf theme right now -- it truly is fucking brilliant. The same goes for the Knight Rider theme.

Re:Which was first?

[tbase]

Dude, You don't mind if I take out an insurance policy on you for being killed my a meteorite, do you? I feel an ironic smackdown in the works :-)

Re:Which was first?

[LauraScudder]

There's been several other proposed origins for the flood story, which has existed in many cultures, not just Judeo-Christian ones. One major possible source is the flooding of what is now the Black Sea when the Mediterranean rose high enough to pour over the Dardenelles. I've also heard that the filling of the Red Sea is another proposed source of the myth.

There have been lots of civilizations affected by catastrophic floods, and with rising sea levels post-Ice Age, its not suprising that most cultures in the area ended up with a flood story resembling Noah's.

Re:Which was first?

[CaptainAvatar]

IIRC, Copernicus' theory was only published posthumously, and with a disclaimer to the effect that he wasn't saying this is how the universe ACTUALLY is, but was only presenting a mathematical model which could be used for more accurate ephemerides. So he was hardly exposing himself to the same criticism as Galileo.

Re:Which was first?

[CaptainAvatar]

I don't doubt that the quotes are accurate, but Hitler was a master propagandist, and was quite happy to lie to gain the support of anyone he needed. In particular, all the quotes you give (and the pictures you link to) are for public consumption (with the possible exception of the last quote, but it looks like he was trying to reassure a Catholic that he was not going to persecute them). Speaking as a historian, you can't always take words at face value, particularly when they come from a bare-faced liar like Hitler; you need to examine the context in which they were said or written. And most historians agree that Hitler was privately extremely hostile to religion. Here's a section I transcribed from Michael Burleigh's The Third Reich: A New History (London: Macmillan, 2000), pp. 717-8, for another mailing list a while back:

National Socialism, like other totalitarian dictatorships, parodied many of the eschatological and liturgical attributes of redemptive religions, while being fundamentally antagonistic towards the Churches: rivals, as the Nazis saw it, in the subtle, totalising control of minds. However, the overwhelmingly Christian character of the German people meant that Hitler dissembled his personal views behind preachy invocations of the Almighty, and distanced himself from the radically irreligious within his own Party, even though his own views were probably more extreme. During the Weimar period, he periodically traduced the Roman Catholic Centre Party for engaging in coalitions with "atheist internationalists" in the SPD. In reality, his views were a mixture of materialist biology, a faux-Nietzchean contempt for core, as distinct from secondary, Christian values, and a visceral anti-Clericalism. Even though he disdained a confrontation with wearers of "petticoats and cassocks", in the long term a showdown would come:

The war will be over one day. I shall then consider that my life's final task will be to solve the religious problem. Only then will the German nation be entirely secure once and for all. I don't interfere in matters of belief. Therefore I can't allow churchmen to interfere with temporal affairs. The organised lie must be smashed. The State must remain the absolute master. When I was younger, I thought it was necessary to set about matters with dynamite. I've since realised that there's room for a little subtlety. The rotten branch falls of itself. The final state must be: in St Peter's chair, a senile officiant; facing him, a few sinister old women, as gaga and as poor in spirit as anyone could wish. The young and healthy are on our side.

Rude though they were, these views were roughly congruent with the heated rhetoric of nineteenth-century Church-State conflicts. But, in what followed, Hitler forsook this terrain for things Emil Combes would have found horrible: "Christ was an Aryan" rather than a Jew; St Paul was responsible for mobilising the "criminal underworld" on behalf of "proto-Bolshevism". Christianity signified nothing but "wholehearted Bolshevism under a tinsel of metaphysics". "What is this God who takes pleasure only in seeing men grovel before him?" What was the Christian heaven compared to that of Islam? Christianity was "an invention of sick brains", "a negro with his tabus is crushingly superior to the human being who seriously believes in Transubstantiation". He continued:

By what would you have me replace the Christians' picture of the Beyond? ... The soul and the mind migrate, just as the body returns to nature. Thus life is eternally reborn from life. As for the "why?" of all that, I feel no need to eternally rack my brains on the subject. The soul is unplumbable ... Man judges everything in relation to himself. What is bigger than himself is big, what is smaller is small. Only one thing is certain, that one is part of the spectacle. Everyone finds his own role. Joy exists for everybody. I dream of a state of affairs in which every man would know that he lives and dies for the preservation of the species.

Re:Which was first?

[iocat]

Yeah, I definitely subscribe to the "God is some kid playing the best game of SimCity ever" theory of theology.

Re:Which was first?

[HiredMan]

I was simply refuting the assertation that Hitler was against all religions and people (presumably Christians) challenged the validity of my quote. I was simply providing other quotes and an attribution for the quote in question.
I have no doubt Hitler was an evil guy and a master at saying whatever needed to said at any given time. I also know that anything Hitler said about Christianity will not make me feel any differently about either Hitler or Chrsitianity. He was also a vegetarian - but again that doesn't effect my view of vegetarians.

This thread is wildly off topic and should be finished.

'Nuff said.

=tkk

Re:Which was first?

[Tablizer]

Actually it has in the form of gods or supernatural beings that dwell "up there" in or as stars. However, the concept of other earth-like planets seemed foriegn to most non-modern religions.

Re:Which was first?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Which must have brought a sigh of relief from all the goats and oxen."

Probably not as much as the destruction of the Second Temple circa 67 CE (AD if you prefer). There were a lot more Jews than Christians (or more properly, Jesus-following Jews and some gentiles). I personally think there's a good argument to be made that Judaism's survival through the current age is due to that event, as well as the Diaspora. The repressive religious establishment that Jesus tried to overturn (as opposed to the Essenes' running away and the Pharisees' and Zealots' more reform-minded movements) was thus rendered useless as there was no longer any sacrificial operation to oversee or Temple-based redistribution system to administer. This vacuum was filled by the (already flourishing) synagogues that produced rabbinical Judaism. I find it unlikely that a Jerusalem-centric sacrificial cultus would have lasted as long as Judaism has.

"Now Ezekiel, there was a guy who had spent too much time out in the desert living off some rather dubious mushrooms."

Only if you deny the viability of prophetic visions. The wheels within wheels and whatnot are actually a rather stunning poetic device illustrating the mobility of Israel's deity. This was a big concern for the exiles in Babylon, including the trained-for-the-priesthood-Ezekiel, as the Jerusalem Temple was literally considered to be where YHWH lived. Thus many wondered whether their god was still available to them in this place far from home. Ezekiel confirmed the universal nature and power of YHWH.

xaaronx - posting anonymously as I'm WAAAY offtopic.

Re:Which was first?

[xaaronx]

Actually, we are Golgafrinchans. Though I'll deny it if it's ever brought up again; who wants to be descended from telephone sanitizers?

Re:Which was first?

[CaptainAvatar]

This thread is wildly off topic and should be finished. 'Nuff said.

With a 4-digit ID you should know better than that :)

With all due respect, you weren't simply "refuting ... that Hitler was against all religions" - that may have been your original intent but then you went on to say that the other quotes you provide showed that Hitler "saw the Christian church as his source of inspiraton and strength and thought it was important for the nation as well". Which, I'm sorry, just is not true: he despised Christianity and thought it made Germany weak. He needed the support of the churches while he was consolidating power and during the war, but after that he had plans for them. Just about any historian of the Nazi period will tell you that.

Anyway, I'm no Christian but an agnostic-cum-atheist, so I have no particular axe to grind here, other than historical accuracy.

Re:Which was first?

[djplurvert]

I didn't catch this the first time, but I want to point out the fallacy in your question.

So if I believe I can pray to trees that listen to me I'm a nutjob, but I'm not a nutjob if I pray to a being I can't see or hear who created everything because of some intangible part of me that will live on after my biological death? I'm not arguing with you either way, I just find these kind of arguments funny, and most religious discussions are like this to me.

That isn't what I said and you know that isn't what I said. However, there is good reason to support that one is a "nutjob" if they are praying to trees because we have a pretty good understanding of trees and rightly think they don't have the capacity to hear you. Certainly, one could attempt to test this hypothesis, but most scientists AND priests would consider it a waste of time. Now, are you suggesting that trees can hear your prayers? If so, on what basis? If you are, I suggest, as I did before, you are a nutjob.

Now, if you claim to believe in god and that god can hear you, then I might say you are wrong, but it isn't the same as praying to trees now is it.

While you have no evidence that god exists, the very foundations of religious belief expect you to believe god does exist, hence praying to a god that doesn't exist under the belief it exists would be no different than a child asking santa claus for a christmas present. I would classify this as simply deluded, not nutty.

One can either assert that some type of god exists, or one doesn't assert. If you claim it can hear you then you are asserting god. If you think it can help you then you are asserting god. If you think it's just the trees, then you have made no argument whatsoever and your "spirituality" is nothing more than a comfort blanket.

Believers cannot claim that they don't believe when it's convenient to make a point. Religion is inextricably tied to the supernatural.

Insofar as praying without knowing what you're praying to. Why call it prayer? It's not, and you are by definition, agnostic/atheist. If you find meditation helps you in some way, welcome to the wonderful world of the human psyche, but that is not religion. If you claim there is more, then your are making an assertion that you are not honestly representing here.

/plurvert

Re:Which was first?

[kfg]

Only if you deny the viability of prophetic visions.

Other than as a psycological effect, yeah, I'm afraid I do. I may be a metaphysician, but I'm no mystic. This is not to say, however, that such psycholgical effects can't be without personal value, just as one can use the tarot (or I Ching , according to taste) as a trigger for personal insight without believing that the layout of the cards is anything more than random.

Other than that I'm in essential agreement with you, and for all I know we're in essential agreement on that too.

. . . posting anonymously as I'm WAAAY offtopic.

As you can see by the post you're responding too I don't worry about that sort of thing anymore. I just post and let 'em mod the hell out of me.

Boys will be boys, and it gives 'em somethin' to do and keeps 'em outta trouble.

KFG

Re:Which was first?

[Articuno]

God existence can be an undecidable problem. Then you could add or not that in your axioms, and everything would be ok ^_^v

Re:Which was first?

[weeboo0104]

Do you think that our chimpanzee-esque forebearers preserved the history orally all of that time?

No, the Monolith did that for them.

Re:Which was first?

[HiredMan]

With a 4-digit ID you should know better than that :)

LOL

Unfortunately, because Hitler was completely bent on power _all_ of the information we have from his record has to be viewed through the lens of him saying whatever he thought would advance his agenda. Even in his candid and private moments he was such an ego-maniac and a figure of history that we have to consider that he was aware that everything he said might later be subject to study. But since there aren't too many people leaving the Nazi party and writing "insider books" like there are now we have only information that we have to heavily filter and is subject to interpretation.
In _Mein Kampf_ he discusses at length how his religious upbringing formed his thoughts and philosophies - including his anti-Semitism. But again this may have been calculated to guide the German's reading it to his conclusions given that they had similiar upbringings. "See, I'm just like you and reached these conclusions and so should you." Nothing he says can be taken at face value.

I agree that even when Hitler refers to how he won't attack the church there is always an underlying theme, or even implicit threat, that as long as they don't bother his affairs of state they can continue to function. I have no doubt that the church, as with ANYTHING else, if he felt it got in his way he would work to destroy it. Some one as power mad as Hitler sees EVERYTHING as a function of the power it does, or can, wield. If he felt the church had the power to challenge his state he would work, as you implied, to weaken it's ability to challenge his state.

Ultimately he would have to arrive at a solution like Napoleon taking the crown from the church official and crowning himself rather than deriving any authority from the church. I think religion was too important a part of German "volk" culture that I think the best Hitler could have done is a King Henry and replaced the churches with a new state approved religion. But that gets harder to do as history marches on - religion derives much of its legitimacy from its age and history. Every religion was new once but once they've aged they mock newer religions as 'false'. Same with Kings - once that lineage that traces you back to Adam becomes suspect it is hard to control absolutely as God's chosen one.

I think he would have had a tough time in Germany replacing or destroying the church even if he decided it was necessary. But ultimately I don't think it would have been needed. The dominant church always seems to find in the Bible whatever they need to support the government: the Dutch Reformed in SA used the Bible to support apartheit, importing blacks for slavery in American south and now war in Iraq. Whether you think this reflects on the churches, the Bible or both is left up to you.

=tkk

Re:Which was first?

[hal9000]

"Well, if I have to prove to you there is a God, you have to prove to me there isn't."

As they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Was the onus upon us, for example, to prove to Heaven's Gate that there was no UFO behind Hale-Bopp? I mean no disrespect here, but your belief that a divine being came into Earth's affairs with intent and sparked the intellect in humanity (and presumably saw fit for every other species to remain wihout it) is no less absurd than a heavenly spaceship tailgaiting a comet and taking hitchikers, in that neither belief is in any way supported by verifiable evidence.

Atheism isn't necessarily about stating categorically that there are no gods (though "strong atheists" do claim as much). It just means you have yet to fathom a god that might actually exist. Someone once said something like, "Everyone is atheist with respect to all the religions they don't agree with, Atheists are just atheist with regard to one more."

Re:Which was first?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Yep- NewAdvent is the web version of the 1992 Catechism.

Not only on this issue- but many others as well- is the Catholic Church far more liberal than your average fundie.

At least- if you're talking about the Church headed by Pope John Paul II. YMMV with Hutton Gibson (Mel's Father), Pope Pius XIII of Montana, Catholics for Free Choice......

Re:Which was first?

[CaptainAvatar]

OK, well we seem to disagree less than we originally did ... :)

Well, it's true that even in private, Hitler grandstanded and postured for the benefit of his cronies, and so what he said then still has to be taken with a grain of salt. But surely it is more likely that what he said would approach the truth more closely when he was relaxing in private with fellow Nazis who enjoyed and agreeed with his rants, or discussing what should be done about the churches in the present or in the future, than in radio broadcasts or political rallies where he is appealing to a mass audience - speaking for very public consumption. He may have been a megalomaniac, but that doesn't mean he never meant what he said. You just need to examine the context carefully.

As for Mein Kampf, as you suggest that's still propaganda, a political tool designed to persuade - not a coherent and factual account of his life or ideology. You might well ask why didn't he bash Christians in Mein Kampf as he bashed Jews and Bolshevists, if he despised them so much? My suggestion would be that it's precisely because he bashed Jews and Bolshevists - if he alienated Christians also, well, there wouldn't have been many Germans left who did not fall into one of those three categories. This would make it hard to gain political support. Also, Hitler liked to present himself as a respectable bourgouis gentleman, and a conventional Christianity was part of that facade.

As for not tolerating alternative power bases not under his control, you are exactly right, and of course this is what the "Church struggle" of 1936-7 was all about (eg hundreds of priests were put in concentration camps, the church hierarchy was forced to toe the line, etc). In this context, Ian Kershaw (in Nemesis (London, 2001), pp. 39-41) refers to Hitler's radical instincts on the issue, although it concerned him much less than it did Goebbels and Rosenberg. And although he did attempt to restrain his underlings - because a fight with the Churches was not politically opportune at the time - as Kershaw notes, his anti-Christian rhetoric encouraged them to believe they were carrying out his wishes - eg in 1937 he said that 'Christianity was ripe for destruction' (according to Goebbels' diary).

I agree he would have had a hard time eliminating Christianity; in fact he couldn't have. But that would not stop him from trying ... he looked forward one day to 'the destruction of the clerics' at the hands of the Nazis. (Again, according to Goebbels' diary).

Anyway, none of this fits in with the "Hitler was a Christian" line.

Re:Which was first?

[Rick the Red]

We don't have much evidence of a civilization pre-Egyptian times, do we. Did it just 'spring' up just like that?

Yes and no. Egypt was the first durable civilization; others pre-date it, but little of them remains for us to study. When you build with wood what you build doesn't last. Two things converged to make Egypt the durable success we know today: the invention of the plow and the flooding of the Nile. Together, these made it possible for one person to grow more food than their immediate family needed. It also made it possible to settle down in one place. When that happened, you freed up people to make pottery, learn to carve rock, etc. Next thing you know, you've built the pyramids. Well, your great-grand children have :-)

Re:Which was first?

[saforrest]

Water was tested in both the Gulf of Mexico and Indian Ocean for salinity. They apprarently discovered about the same time on both sides of the world a sudden drop. It wasn't a slight drop either. It was a major drop.

Care to provide a reference?

It's true that it is generally believed that there has been global flooding within the last 50,000 years or so. Ocean levels were lower and there was almost certainly a land bridge connecting Siberia to Alaska. I've even heard it suggested that the Mediterranean was then an inland sea.

When the glaciers melted, ocean levels rose abruptly, and are still at these levels now. It's likely the addition of this fresh water would be accompanied by a measurable decrease in salinity.

However, this would probably not be significant when compared with the variation in salinity levels created by normal ocean currents.


I'm thinking something must have happened on a global scale for this to happen. IANAS (I am not a scientist) however I don't believe on coincidence.


Well, it isn't a leap to say that something needed to happen on a global scale to explain a global decrease in salinity levels. It is a leap, however, to say that this provides strong evidence for the literal truth of Noah's Flood.

Re:Which was first?

[Anonymous Coward]

People are awfully fond of pronouncing the death of religion, but they are almost never right. There are two ways that religion could survive this:

1-God created us, God created them.
2-Good old fashioned denial, e.g. creationism, age of the earth, flat world theory, and so on.

Never underestimate people's ability to suppress inconvenient realities.


3- We're all dead and this is purgatory, where you have to survive ordeals and trials upon your faith, to come out the other end, to New Jerusalem of the Kingdom to Come, and a new Heaven on Earth, when the celestian Jerusalem descends and replaces the radioactive ruins of the last war...

Re:Which was first?

[u-235-sentinel]

"Care to provide a reference?"

Sure. The show was presented on PBS about 4 years ago. Wish I had more to go on. I haven't thought much about it since the show to be honest.

Re:Which was first?

[HiredMan]

Do I think that the structure of the church and it's power influenced his view of how things should work, be structured and how power could be used?
Yes.

Do I think the church influenced his early beliefs including his anti-Semitism?
Yes.

I guess the bottom line is, "Do you think Hitler was a Chrisitian?"
No, I guess. If anything Hitler probably saw himself as God or at the very least a divine force for his concept of God's will. Depending on how twisted his view of God and the universe was he may have considered himself a Christian and even a servant of God - however at odds he was with the church itself. His anti-religious statements are actually anti-church/clergy statements.

Will I continue to tweak Christians by quoted Hitler's praise for Christianity?
Almost certainly. (Call it a character flaw.)

And now that's definitely enough about all that,

=tkk

Re:Which was first?

[Sique]

The Vatican learned a lot from the lesson of Galileo; even if it did take them until the 20th century to acknowledge so publicly. The Catholic church does seem to be keeping up with the times, however; contraception being one example of sorts...

Yes. The Vatican learned that it's no good to intervene into a scholar dispute between different universities.

The original dispute has not been one of Galileo Galilei vs. the Roman Catholic Church, but it was a long standing feud between the University Sorbonne in Paris and the University of Bologna. While most early universities (mostly in Italy) were founded in the 12th and 13th century by either local aristocracy or the citizens of the rich north italian towns to provide education to the offsprings of the aristrocracy and the citizenry, Sorbonne in Paris was founded by monks to provide an equal niveau of education to the clerical cadre.

Because of that different background, scholars and pupils of the different universities were always in feud against each other, damning the different roots and thus the different curricula at the other universities.

Galileo Galilei was involved into many of those scientific disputes, and he wrote his Discurso (1612), which summed up his standing in the dispute. And he basicly said: "I am right, and you all are wrong", which caused an uproar at the quite conservative Sorbonne. So the Sorbonne scholars tried to get something we would call today a "cease and desist" indictment against Galileo Galilei, based on the fact that he was claiming omniscence and supporting the Copernican System, which was called a heresy, even though it was widely used by astronomers and navigators at the time, because it made the calculations of star and planete positions so much easier, after J. Kepler corrected the basic flaws in 1597 (Normally one should talk about the Keplerian System instead of the Copernican anyway, even though Mikolasz Kopernik came up with the solar centric idea first. His book got into print in 1574, the year of his death. But the mathematics necessary to calculate within the Copernican System were no better than the old Ptolemaian. Same epicycles everywhere!).

It took another 20 years for the Vatican to finally take the case and invite Galileo Galilei to come to Rome and defend himself. Pope Urban VIII even gave Galileo Galilei a free pass to use the Copernican System in 1624, when he was freshly elected Pope, provided he called it a "mathematical theory" and not the truth. At this time the pope was involved in serveral battles anyway: The age of discovery and colonization was in full swing, having good and reliable astronomical data thus was a necessity, and the Roman Catholic Church was interested in the results and the baptizing of all the heathens out there. In the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation, the 30year war was fought between the german protestants and the german catholics, with heavy involvement of Sweden and France. The protestant countries were adverse to all those new astronomical ideas anyway. It took more than 200 years until all german protestant countries took over the new calendar!

So the matter wasn't really urgent to the Vatican at all. Galileo Galilei got the letter in October 1632 and finally went to Rome in May 1633. There he was never incarcerated, as often portrayed in popular books and plays, but because he was employed by the Florentinian Medici family at this time, he lived as a guest in the Villa Medici in Rome (not really a dungeon, even though the family Medici had some fame to throw people they didn't like into dungeons...)

Finally Galileo Galilei was disgusted with the internal struggle inside the Vatican, which forced Pope Urban VIII to withdraw from his former stand, and felt himself and his Discurso being just some pawns in the game, which he didn't like. So in court, he didn't dispute, but withdraw everything he stated and stepped down from his role as teacher at Florence University, to get out of the game ongoing in Rome. With him

Re:Which was first?

[shadowbearer]

Holy Mackeraloni. I hereby bequeath my mod points in this thread to you :)

That's more detail than I remember seeing even in history of astro class in college. Any modern book(s) you can point me to?

Cheers!
SB

Re:Which was first?

[boots@work]

I was actually more impressed by the acknowledgement by the Catholic church that condoms were perhaps not a bad idea, after all.

I don't know about that, but they *did* make an announcement last year that HIV could pass through the rubber of condoms. Which is pretty funny when you consider that condoms make fine balloons, and the relative sizes of O_2 molecules and viruses. Still, what do you expect from people who believe in fairies?

Re:Which was first?

[boots@work]

We can date if your iq is higher than your weight!

Just curious (I don't want to date you) -- are you working in pounds or kilograms?

Re:Which was first?

[boots@work]

There was even a way in for religion into Cell Theory. If all cells came from other cells, where did the first cell come from?

Which is a pretty typical cheap trick. Chickens prove the existence of god, otherwise where did the first chicken come from?

That kind of sophistry went out of intellectual fashion in about the 15th century. But it still seems to linger around some of the more cult-like christian churches.

Re:Which was first?

[shadowbearer]

You're not serious, are you?. Got a link to their announcement?

That'd be pretty funny....

SB

Re:Which was first?

[boots@work]

The origin is an interview between Trujilo and the BBC. I can't find a transcript but it is cited in the Guardian. (I don't entirely agree with the Guardian but I trust them to report direct quotes accurately.)

The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.

The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to HIV.

A senior Vatican spokesman backs the claims about permeable condoms, despite assurances by the World Health Organisation that they are untrue.

Even when they try to spin this back, we still have

"Condoms change the beautiful act of love into a selfish search for pleasure" -- which is putting a lot of weight on a little bit of rubber!

"Condoms may even be one of the main reasons for the spread of HIV/AIDS."

I can't work out if this is funny or sad or both. The Vatican has said a lot of stupid and evil things over the centuries. This one is particularly amusing because it takes only a middle-school understanding of science to realize it's so ridiculous, as I said in the grandparent.

I have to stop reading it. The sheer distortion and lies are making me mad.

Everyone should read "Humanae Vitae" -- it's only about ten pages and a great exercise in detecting invalid arguments.

Re:Which was first?

[shadowbearer]

How truly insane. Just the sort of thing I expect from them...I kind of wonder if they didn't get a hold of a Quality Assurance report on condoms or something and spin the occasional defective statistics.

In my original statement I was thinking about how the Vatican IIRC back in the 80s somewhat reversed their position on birth control; my memory is pretty fuzzy on it now, as I haven't cared to pay attention to what Catholics expound for nearly twenty years :)

I'm off to work, but feel free to respond...that was interesting.

Cheers
SB

Re:Which was first?

[rpj1288]

Still, where did the first cell come from? My biology teacher at a public high school asked our class this. She did not expect an answer, and was just trying to see how our class would react. Apperently we acted as a mirror of world-wide controversy.

Re:Which was first?

[boots@work]

There is a big difference between "condoms sometimes fail" (true) and "there are holes in (all) condoms that viruses can pass through".

Anyhow, the reason for the statement is nothing to do with the safety or not of condoms. The Vatican has tied itself into a bizarre knot with the Humanae Vitae proclamation that contraception is always wrong, and they can't admit that condoms might be a good thing for some people. How many people will die because of following this advice?

Here is the text of Humanae Vitae. I don't have time to rebutt it here, but I encourage you to see how many fallacies you can spot.

The biggest one of course, is that they assume God intends every single act (e.g. intercourse) to be possible to lead to its organic purpose (i.e. birth of a child.) Interrupting sex before ejaculation is a sin. But where do you draw the line, and where did they get that bizarre idea from in the first place? Is it a sin to not proceed from a kiss to ejaculation? Is it a sin not to procreate with the first partner you ever ask on a date? Is it a sin to make a cup of tea and then not drink it?

If an all-powerful loving God wants a couple to have a child, one fertile sex act is enough. Indeed, God could certainly rip a little condom if He wanted.

Re:Which was first?

[boots@work]

Well, as with a chicken, it came from something which looked almost like a cell but was not quite.

If you had been there at the time watching the hatching of the first "chicken", it would have been nearly indistinguishable from its supposedly non-chicken parents. It's probably impossible to point to a single organism that was the first "chicken", but in retrospect we can say roughly when it evolved.

My biology is a bit rusty to describe the exact sequence, but it goes like this: complex cells evolved from simpler cells. Simple cells evolved from objects that didn't quite match the definition of cells but were close to it. Wikipedia has a decent article about cells.

The big question is how did replicators such as RNA first get going.

Re:Which was first?

[shadowbearer]

Oh, I understand your first point. I was just trying to figure out....nay, maybe I was just thinking that they may be rational. Silly me :)

I'll have to read HV sometime. I've heard of it but never cared enough to read it. Thanks for the link.

Hmmm....I wonder... is it possible that the original conception "be fertile and populate the earth" and the sin of "birth control" originated in early myths as a way to explain why pregnancy was nearly always inevitable? It's possible also that the "sin" part was conceived as an excuse for subjugation women; a stretch, but...

Doing it again....postulating logic unto religious concepts. WTF, it's Friday and I've had a couple beers... :)

Hell, an allpowerful God could certainly grant children to childless loving couples easily. Instead it takes human medicine. (Of course religious loonies will argue that it's all part of "God's Plan" - the normal cop-out argument)

Cheers!
SB

Panspermia

[Anonymous Coward]

And of course if life existed on Mars, this gives the whole SETI thing alot more significance. Next we need to find the ancient alien spacecraft that crashed on Mars and started life there!

Re:Panspermia

[CaptainFrito]

should be a lot easier to find a spacehip crash-landed on Mars given the utter lack of life there now.

Now let me get this straight: NASA found a Mars rock that was a lot like a few rocks found on Earth that came from meteorites. And who's to say that a little bit of life didn't stick to one of the meteoric rocks that flew around the cosmos for a few bazillion years until it hit the Earth and then flew all the way back to Mars and eventually caused Eath and Mars both to have life on them? And furthermore since water was found there too, there must be, or have been, life on Mars.

Got it. In fact, this article proves a pet theory of mine too.

The Apollo rocketships that carried men to the moon always did look eerily similar to the Mercury rocketships that brought men into orbit, and they quite similar to the Gemini rocketships before them. Pretty freaky. And they were in outer space too. Hey -- I know -- one of them bounced off Mars and hit the earth and the next thing you know we have all kinds of different rocketships. Wow that's amazing. And all this time I thought they were created by intelligent creatures who built them for a specific purpose... And I have seen pictures of simlilar metallic lifeforms on Mars and the moon. That must be it: they evolved all on their own from stuff flying around on meteors that bounced off planets I'll call it the "Cosmic Ricochet" theory, then argue in open court that I should be allowed to teach it on free speech theory, and then proclaim I even proved I was right in court. Wonder where Darrow is these days...

Man what a dupe I've been. All those who say someone created those rocketships are now so obviously stupid, just plain stupid. It's obvious they evolved from one another due to survival of the fittest and natural selection. They were all inferior to what we see now, so they died out. All according to Erasmus Darwin's theories. It's now fact. Thanks for clearing that up. Now that I know that simple metallic creatures can evolve into sophisticated intergallactic travellers all by themselves, I'm now less skeptical that something as complex and interdependent as Earth's billions of varied lifeforms that require each other to live in a dynamic but very detailed symbiotic, mutualistic system did all by blind chance.

And -- hey!!! -- now I don't have to worry about the environment because life will just evolve and adapt to the new changes. Global warming raising sea levels? Who cares, we'll get gills just like we got lungs. And I read the Blind Watchmaker. According to that work of genius, all we have to do is keep throwing people into the water enough times and viola! they'll be all set. Just like it happened with the flying squirrel working things out by jumping out of trees and 'naturally selecting' all that flabby skin and flight into existence.

Thanks, I feel so enlightened now. And go ahead, mod it down into oblivion. At least I know that nobody "created" rocketships. I'm way smarter than all you "rocketship creationists".

Re:Panspermia

[Guido von Guido]

What a biting critique of evolution! I am impressed. Odd, though. I don't think anybody had claimed that "simple metallic creatures can evolve into sophisticated intergallactic travellers." I thought it was just rocks (which may or may not contain tiny fossils). And I don't remember anything about evolution doesn't say anything about not having to "worry about the environment." Any adaptations evolved by our descendants won't help us too much. And--oh, never mind. Sheesh.

Re:Panspermia

[FrostedWheat]

Next we need to find the ancient alien spacecraft that crashed on Mars

Tip for future explorers if your on this mission: If you name is Kane, don't go into the ship.

Just take off, and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Re:Panspermia

[CaptainFrito]

"I don't think anybody had claimed that "simple metallic creatures can evolve into sophisticated intergallactic travelers." " You're right, it's an utterly laughable notion, one so obviously wrong that it must be dismissed out of hand, with predjudice, by any reasonable person. And it should be, because it is pure nonsense. Trouble with the statement is that if it said, "simple organic creatures can evolve into sophisticated intergallactic travellers," it would be taken with all seriousness and agreed to implicitly by every evolutionary scientist. Therefore, it would be more convincing if you could explain to readers why animate intelligent life must have evolved without intelligent intevention, but rocketships must not have evolved without intelligent intevention, according to the established 'laws' of the theory of evolution. Otherwise the original article is yet another talk-is-cheap, it's-all-too-hard-to-prove claim by a government bureaucracy that gets financially rewarded for simply reguritating it.

But these same people did, and do, claim that all life on earth has evolved into this hypercomplex, delicately balanced, symbiotic and interdependent system so intricately interwoven that even the simplest-to-understand ecosystems defy completely accurate understanding, even after millenia of study. These claim that this could only be a matter of happenstance, and the former could not be, and that those who would even suggest rocketships self-create and then evolve are intellectual cripples, pathetically clinging to myth.

Now, about the environment: Evolutionists claim (and this is one ramification of this silly article) that life can spontaneously create itself according to whatever conditions exist and then progress and adapt according to changing environmental conditions. It is claimed that intelligent people are newer than apes, which are newer than fish, and so on, because the process is "naturally" biased toward stepwise refinement, relentlessly increasing complexity to deal with adversity and fill ever newer niches, based on the laws of [unimaginably impossible-to-calculate] "statistics" and "blind chance". This is a completely accurate summary of evolutionary theory. This theory mandates that we not preserve the environment, because to do so would be to shut off the engine that powers evolution itself. Evolutionary change would be stifled and then no better, more refined species would be able to emerge. Rather, it mandates that we do all we can to change it so we can see better and more perfect species appear as a result. This statement is 100% supported and encouraged by all the commonly held beliefs of evolutionary theory.

On the other hand, if a creationist had said that the meteorite slammed into Earth so hard that it bounced all the way to Mars with a bit living organism stuck to it because God threw it really hard at the Earth, the laughter would be so thunderous that we'd all bounce to Mars (so as to start a new colony, since some would sureley mutate into viable Martian organisms in flight, no doubt). But say that all that happened for no particular reason at all, it becomes a subject for billions of dollars in research grants. In the end, what you believe comes down to core motive: the blind chance theory justifies its adherents complete selfishness, because survival of the fittest is a doctrine rooted in selfishness.

But there is straightforward test of this meteorite-as-flubber theory: Put a tiny piece of life on one of those metorite rocks and shoot it to the moon, add water to it when it gets there and see if it comes to life. If not, the theory is absolutely wrong and disproven according to the tenets of the scientific method.

Re:Panspermia

[CaptainFrito]

I now know the surest way to get modded up and modded down on /.

Mod Down: Cogent arguments based uon scientific method, observed fact, experimentation results that support that life was intentionally created by an intelligence = -1 flamebait

Mod Up: Sarcastic retort, lacking any proof or scientific relevence, implying that anyone that is a creationist is an idiot because everybody says so = +3 karma

This is perfectly reliable. To wit:

Bacteria transorms into catfish = Random chance, no intelligence, driven because the bacteria realize that it's better to be a catfish or because there's a lot of water around and bacteria can't swim too well (okay, you make up the reason).

Bacteria and Catfish independent works of an intelligent creator = Pathetic dialog of an ignorant corn-pone Bible thumper capable of any level of higher reasoning

A horse = undeniably the work of environmental forces randomly acting on living organisms that force it to fill an unfilled ecological niche.

Cave painting of a horse = irrefutable proof that an intelligent being capable of cognative thought existed there.

Native American tribesman = Random chance, just like the horse and the catfish, no doubt nature's hit-or-miss, blind chance way of addressing the buffalo overpopulation (or whatever the reason is that steers the "blind watchmaker").

Stone arrowhead = irrefutable proof that an intelligent Native American tribesman capable of cognative thought existed there.

CCD Camera chip = Random chance creates a light sensitive organism because of a needed ecological niche.

The Human Eye = The work of thousands and thousands of intelligent creatures refining industrial processes, manipulating the laws of the physical universe to create a part of a vision system.

(oh crap...I might have actually gotten the last two reversed...hrumph)

Check any museum display or scientific textbook and these "facts" will be listed there (reverse the last two for yourselves). But obviously, if a stone arrowhead could not happen by chance, then how could the infinitely more complex human arise by chance? It would be nice if someone who was an evolutionist and a competent mathematician (statistician) would compute odds on the arrowhead appearing randomly, and then for the human appearing randomly. Or the painting of a horse, and then for the living horse prototype. This would be according to the scientific method, and the answer, which is so intuitively obvious would show that since evolution is based on statistics (it's never been shown to actually work according to theory experimentally) would show that what we say could not happen randomly is millions of time MORE likely to occur than what we say MUST have happened randomly.

The relevance to the original post? Well, that post was yet another ridiculous theory to say how life got here on Earth without having been intentionally created. Now we've got theories on how rocks ricocheting off planets with little bits of life stuck to them spread it around the universe. Just keep it completely incomprehensible and have a guy in a lab coat say it, and it is taken on face value.

Of course the obvious issue for evolutionists is that the mere existence of this panspermia mars-rock-as-life-transport-vehicle article and the attention it garners proves conclusively that "evolution" is still a a collection of theories -- hypotheses actually -- and that it cannot be "fact". If it were fact no one would be disputing how it worked at the most basic level. But evolutionists who say they agree on the "facts" can't even decide whether panspermia is correct or it was abiogenesis or organic soup or whatever. Even Stanley Miller, the organic soup experimenter died without ever being able to prove his theories. Sure he rigged a simple chemistry experiment, but he never showed one shred of evidence that those conditions ever

Re:now the question is

[h4v0k]

Actually, the question is where did it come from to begin with?

Pretty lucky bounce

[bstone]

Add +5 Karma points to the Mars rovers

Another Possibility, Or Am I Missing the Point?

[osewa77]

Instead of saying that the rock came from mars and ended up on earth, why not just take it that similar meteors to the one that landed on mars also landed on Mars. Afterall, the 'bounce' rock is reportedly unlike other Martian rocks. Am I missing the point? I blog from naija

Re:Another Possibility, Or Am I Missing the Point?

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA. Bubbles in the meteorites of this type found on Earth contain gas that matches the martian atmosphere, which strongly suggests they orginated on Mars. Then you have this rock already on Mars that matches them in composition suggesting that certain rocks found on both Earth and Mars have a common source.

Re:Another Possibility, Or Am I Missing the Point?

[Hard_Code]

Am I missing the point?

Yes, did you read the article?

"Controllers considered Bounce an odd find because it did not resemble any of the other rocks in the crater's vicinity -- nor did it resemble anything seen before on Mars, they said. ...

Rather more than that. Bounce's chemical composition exactly matches that of a meteorite that hit the ground in Shergotty, India, on Aug. 25, 1865.

Called the Shergotty meteorite -- and the source name for a class of meteorites called shergottites -- its chemical composition is a "matching fingerprint" to Bounce, said David Grinspoon, professor of planetary science at the University of Colorado in Boulder.

The resemblance helps confirm something meteorite specialists and planetary scientists have suspected for more than two decades but until now have been unable to prove: Micro-bubbles of gas trapped in dozens of meteorites found on Earth -- including Shergotty -- match the recipe of Martian atmosphere so closely that they must have originated on Mars.

"There is a striking similarity in spectra," said Christian Schroeder, a rover science-team collaborator from the University of Mainz in Germany, which supplied both Mars rovers with Moessbauer spectrometers -- exceedingly sensitive instruments for identifying chemical compositions."

Re:Another Possibility, Or Am I Missing the Point?

[damiangerous]

Instead of saying that the rock came from mars and ended up on earth, why not just take it that similar meteors to the one that landed on mars also landed on Mars. Afterall, the 'bounce' rock is reportedly unlike other Martian rocks.

Because that's not what they're trying to say. Bounce originated on Mars, despite being unlike other Martian rocks (which also makes it valuable in that light as wel).

Am I missing the point?

Yes, the point is that this rock probably came from the same impact crater that created the Shergotty meteorites that landed on Earth. Something crashed into Mars a long time ago and sent debris flying. Some of it escaped Mars and ended up on Earth (and probably other places). Some did not and fell back to Mars.

Re:Another Possibility, Or Am I Missing the Point?

[osewa77]

My original post has a typo; I meant earth and mars. I get it better now. But what would explain why this particular rock type that was crashed into and bounced as far as earth would be rare on Mars?

Re:Another Possibility, Or Am I Missing the Point?

[penguinland]

Not necessarily. The way I read the article, a much more likely scenario is that a meteorite crashed into Mars, and some of the ejected debris crashed into Earth. Here are some choice excerpts from the article:

The high proportion of pyroxene means Bounce not only is unlike any other rock studied by Opportunity or Spirit, but also is unlike the volcanic deposits mapped extensively around Mars...
Personally, I'm inclined to think that this means that Bounce probably did not originate on Mars. It sounds like Bounce is not like any other rock on Mars.

"Some of us think (Bounce) could have been ejected from this crater," Rogers said.
Craters are formed when meteorites smash into planets/moons/etc. To get a crater, you need something that came from another part of the solar system, if not another part of the galaxy. If Bounce came from this crater, as they hypothesize it did, then Bounce may or may not have come from another part of the galaxy, so this theory is starting to fit together well...

On a slightly related note, it should be much easier to find a meteorite on Mars than on Earth - Mars' atmosphere is much thinner than Earth's, so objects are less likely to burn up upon entry into the atmosphere. This explains why Mars has many more craters on it that Earth does. Also, I've read in several places (including a mention in the above quote) that many of the rocks on Mars are quite similar to each other. Thus, any different rocks will stand out rather a lot. This makes meteorite hunting fairly simple. Consequently, it would not surprise me at all if the rovers managed to find a meteorite on Mars.
I do not profess to be at all knowledgeable about Mars geology, but any fool can see that the author of the article knows even less. Not only did they dumb the finding down for laypeople, they have even added some inconsistencies:

Bounce's chemical composition exactly matches that of a meteorite that hit the ground in Shergotty, India, on Aug. 25, 1865.
A less-distinctively named shergottite, EETA79001, found in Antarctica in 1979, has a composition even closer to Bounce's.

I for one am disappointed by the lack of information in the article. Give me a real scientific article with real scientific facts, and hopefully we can then come to real, scientific conclusions. Until then, many different interpretations of this article are equally valid.

Re:Another Possibility, Or Am I Missing the Point?

[damiangerous]

It's probably from a lower strata of "earth" (Mars surface). Current Mars exploration can only examine the top layer of the Martian surface. This rock likely came from deep (much deeper?) below the surface. It's not that it's rare on Mars, it's just that we've never been able to discover it since it lies below the surface.

Re:Another Possibility, Or Am I Missing the Point?

[brianerst]

It sounds like Bounce is something akin to a "tektite". When a large enough meteor impact occurs, the energy release causes some of the planetary material to fuse (trapping gasses in the process) and be ejected into space. When these rain back down on the planet in question, they're called "tektites".

They usually have a glassy composition similar to obsidian, except they have all these bubbles of trapped gas in them (some are more rocky with a fused outer layer).

The assumption here is that you have a big impact event, Martian planetary material melts, fuses and is ejected into space, some of it falling back to Mars (Bounce) and some of it scattering throughout the solar system. One would assume the vast majority would fall back to Mars (you need a lot of velocity or a lot of luck to escape that planetary gravity well), so finding a bunch of Shergotty-like rocks on Mars shouldn't be a surprise.

And just as Earth-originated tektites aren't exactly super-rare (I bought one for $5 at a local observatory's gift shop) but are not stumbled on every day, the fact that Bounce doesn't look like other Martian rocks we're used to doesn't mean it must be material from the meteor (non-Martian). The tektite I have looks a lot like obsidian, but it sure doesn't look like any other kind of rock around these parts.

Just in case

[Anonymous Coward]

Analysis: 'Bounce' rock's cosmic portent

By Phil Berardelli
United Press International
Published 4/16/2004 6:07 PM

WASHINGTON, April 16 (UPI) -- Opportunity's phenomenal luck continues.

Not only did NASA's rover land smack-dab in the middle of a neatly excavated and navigable crater on Mars, where it promptly uncovered persuasive evidence that water once flowed across the red planet, and not only has it been performing nearly flawlessly since it touched down on Jan. 24. Now, it also, essentially, has stubbed its toe on a rock whose discovery portends cosmic implications.

A few days ago, on its slow roll across the Martian terrain at its landing site at Meridiani Planum, an iron-oxide-rich area near the planet's equator, Opportunity's controllers noticed an odd-looking, football-shaped rock lying in the red dust. They named the rock "Bounce," because the lander most likely hit it as it bounced along the surface, cushioned by its airbags, before coming to rest inside the little crater called Eagle.

Controllers considered Bounce an odd find because it did not resemble any of the other rocks in the crater's vicinity -- nor did it resemble anything seen before on Mars, they said.

So they ordered Opportunity to train its formidable instruments on the rock, including the tool NASA engineers affectionately called the "RAT," for rock abrasion tool, which grinds away surface impurities to expose the undisturbed, primordial composition below.

The results stunned the NASA team.

The main ingredient in Bounce is a volcanic mineral called pyroxene, said rover science team member Deanne Rogers, of Arizona State University in Tempe. The high proportion of pyroxene means Bounce not only is unlike any other rock studied by Opportunity or Spirit, but also is unlike the volcanic deposits mapped extensively around Mars by NASA's Mars Global Surveyor orbiter, Rogers said.

Bounce is a unique rock, and it has been sitting at Opportunity's feet.

"We think we have a rock similar to something found on Earth," said Benton Clark of Lockheed Martin Space Systems in Denver, a science-team member for the missions of both Opportunity and its twin, Spirit.

Rather more than that. Bounce's chemical composition exactly matches that of a meteorite that hit the ground in Shergotty, India, on Aug. 25, 1865.

Called the Shergotty meteorite -- and the source name for a class of meteorites called shergottites -- its chemical composition is a "matching fingerprint" to Bounce, said David Grinspoon, professor of planetary science at the University of Colorado in Boulder.

The resemblance helps confirm something meteorite specialists and planetary scientists have suspected for more than two decades but until now have been unable to prove: Micro-bubbles of gas trapped in dozens of meteorites found on Earth -- including Shergotty -- match the recipe of Martian atmosphere so closely that they must have originated on Mars.

"There is a striking similarity in spectra," said Christian Schroeder, a rover science-team collaborator from the University of Mainz in Germany, which supplied both Mars rovers with Moessbauer spectrometers -- exceedingly sensitive instruments for identifying chemical compositions.

A less-distinctively named shergottite, EETA79001, found in Antarctica in 1979, has a composition even closer to Bounce's.

As a result, NASA scientists are convinced Shergotty, EETA79001 and Bounce -- and maybe a couple dozen other Martian rocks that found their way to Earth -- were ejected from Mars by the impact of a large asteroid or comet.

The instruments aboard another orbiter, Mars Odyssey, suggest Bounce may have originated at an impact crater about 16 miles wide that lies about 31 miles southwest of Opportunity. The orbiter's images show some of the rocks thrown outward by the impact that formed the crater flew as far as the distance to the rover.

"Some of us think (Bounce) could have been ejected from this crater," Roge

Re:Just in case

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey! Thats not fair... I didn't want to RTFA.

is it really a rock?

[glen604]

or maybe an errant superball from Earth that got bounced just a little too high?

do not taunt Happy Fun Ball!

Fascinating...

[Jin Wicked]

I'm not usually much of one for news of outer space, but this particular research I find really interesting. Of course it would be interesting to know if life on Earth evolved from organisms in a Meteorite, or simultaneously evolved and was just cross-pollinated.

The conspiracy theorists and UFO nuts have held beliefs in life starting from anywhere from a single-celled organism on a meteorite, to outright terraforming for a long time.

As for life on Mars... I watched a really good documentary about the moon the other day, which basically explained that without the moon -- a single moon -- to help stabilize our planet, we probably wouldn't have ever been here. It will be interesting to see if life evolved on Mars, perhaps conditions were favourable in the past. Apparently since it has multiple small moons, it wobbles on its axis, which makes the climate really unstable over very long periods of times. Or, that was the gist of it.

This sort of thing is exciting again, since they're got more than just grainy pics giving the illusion of human faces in Cydonia. =)

Re:Fascinating...

[use_compress]

As for life on Mars... I watched a really good documentary about the moon the other day, which basically explained that without the moon -- a single moon -- to help stabilize our planet, we probably wouldn't have ever been here. It will be interesting to see if life evolved on Mars, perhaps conditions were favourable in the past. Apparently since it has multiple small moons, it wobbles on its axis, which makes the climate really unstable over very long periods of times. Or, that was the gist of it.

Mars not having a moon to create less eccentric seasons does not imply that life wouldn't have evolved. First, it obviously does not rule out hardy bacteria from existing. Second, many fish and birds make very long migratory paths on earth as would be necessary for the extreme seasonal temperature differences. This would just add a further constraint on life, perhaps leading to physically superior animals to those we have on earth that don't have to make long treks. While the discovery channel documentary was interesting, I think it was FOS.

Re:Fascinating...

[Attaturk]

As for life on Mars... I watched a really good documentary about the moon the other day, which basically explained that without the moon -- a single moon -- to help stabilize our planet, we probably wouldn't have ever been here. It will be interesting to see if life evolved on Mars, perhaps conditions were favourable in the past. Apparently since it has multiple small moons, it wobbles on its axis, which makes the climate really unstable over very long periods of times. Or, that was the gist of it.

Maybe Mars had a perfectly capable moon but it disintegrated (or was blown up by aliens hehe), thereby inducing a wobble and buggering its fragile ecosystem - leaving the big red lump we know and love today.

Re:Fascinating...

[Anonymous Coward]

The conspiracy theorists and UFO nuts have held beliefs in life starting from anywhere from a single-celled organism on a meteorite, to outright terraforming for a long time.

What has that got to do with conspiracy? Do you think that cross-seeding was planned in secret by some commitee and that they're deliberately supressing the information from us?

Re:Fascinating...

[Oligonicella]

"The conspiracy theorists and UFO nuts ... "

Yes, well, they do that. My wonder about those nuts is why it's OK for life to have evolved elsewhere, then came here, but not to have evolved here? Some basic fear of not being devine, I guess.

Re:Fascinating...

[xaaronx]

"Do you think that cross-seeding was planned in secret by some commitee and that they're deliberately supressing the information from us?"

You know too much. Please stay where you are so we can come and . . . discuss your insight into this matter.

What comes around goes around...

[Limited Vision]

I want them to find a rock on Mars that is actually a meteorite from that got ejected from Earth that was actually a meteorite that got ejected from Mars...

In all seriousness, has anyone ever found meteorites that may have come from Venus? Or is it more likely for ejected planetary meteorites to make their way down the Sun's gravity well?

Re:What comes around goes around...

[the MaD HuNGaRIaN]

I don't know, but I think I saw a meteorite that was ejected from Uranus.

ba-dum-dum!

Thanks folks, I'll be here all week. Try the veal..I hear it's delicious.

Re:What comes around goes around...

[CheshireCatCO]

As far as I can recall, we only have meteorites from the Moon and Mars. Worse, a Venus sample return mission seems unlikely for the near future...

Re:What comes around goes around...

[mopomi]

The problem with getting rocks ejected from Venus is that the atmosphere is so dense that the "low velocity" spallation that gets normal, non-shocked rocks from Mars to Earth probably won't work at Venus. That's not to say we couldn't get rocks from Venus, but they'd probably be shocked and we wouldn't recognize them as being from Venus since all the atmospheric gases would have been removed during the impact and subsequent shock. . .

Shocked rock: A rock in which its particles have been accelerated to higher than the speed of sound (in the rock). This causes an irreversible (high entropy) change in the rock, and possibly causes melting.

Re:What comes around goes around...

[another_henry]

Or is it more likely for ejected planetary meteorites to make their way down the Sun's gravity well?

Yes, it's much more likely for meteroites to make it from Mars to Earth than the other way round. Several orders of magnitude more likely. They need much more delta V, although that said a considerable amount is needed just to escape from Mars' gravity well. In other words it is possible but considerably less probable. Whether any microbes would survive an impact of sufficient energy, as well as the long ride through cold vacuum is a different story...

Re:What comes around goes around...

[88NoSoup4U88]

'Worse, a Venus sample return mission seems unlikely for the near future...'

Bush will probably *cough* promise *cough* that in a month.
Hell, those WMD gotta be somewhere ?!

Re:What comes around goes around...

[John Courtland]

Some anaerobic bacteria are damn near invincible. I'd wager they could survive an impact given the right angle of incidence to the planet. Of course then it's a billion years or so before complex organisms could evolve.

Re:What comes around goes around...

[Anonymous Coward]

The only President in recent years that has had any initiative to return to space, and you can't help but knock him. I think your feelings about Bush are clouding your judgement.

P.S.
Regarding the WMD's, if they weren't in IRAQ, then what were the Iraq's hiding from the UN inspectors? They certainly were hiding something, and they had 12 years to hide them.

Politics 101

[empaler]

The trouble is, that there's not enough votes or corporate benefits in pumping tax dollars into the SETI project anymore.

Important isn't the same as important.

Conclusive Possibility?

[Alphanos]

Mars rover Opportunity has found a rock (nicknamed 'Bounce') that "provides conclusive evidence not only of Martian meteorites on Earth, but also of the possibility of cross-seeding." Not only that, but according to the UPI article: 'The discovery of Bounce raises the distinct possibility that life arising from a common source could have existed for a time on both worlds.

Perhaps I'm just unfamiliar with the lingo being used here, but the words conclusive and possibility don't quite seem to make sense when both used in reference to the same evidence.

Re:Conclusive Possibility?

[CheshireCatCO]

They make perfect sense when they apply to different *conclusions* drawn from the evidence. That some meteorites found on Earth originated on Mars now seems pretty much certain (as certain as things can really get in science, anyway). That cross-seeding of organisms occurred is nowhere near as definate.

Re:Conclusive Possibility?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, grandparent is correct,

"life arising from a common source could have existed for a time on both worlds" == "cross-seeding"

Not only did the OP write the same point twice, the first instance is even wrong. "conclusive evidence" is not even in the article!

The entire final paragraph of the topic is

Re:Conclusive Possibility?

[panck]

...as opposed to having no conclusive evidence of the possibility of cross-seeding. i.e. a little conclusive evidence about something points to a possibility, while no evidence (or unconclusive evidence) means it would be pure speculation.

i guess

Re:Conclusive Possibility?

[ScarletEmerald]

"life arising from a common source could have existed for a time on both worlds"
This was described as a "distinct possibility".

"cross-seeding"
This was described as a "possibility".

I agree that these are the same, but since they were also described the same way (as possibilities, NOT as having conclusive evidence), I don't see any problem.

Re:Conclusive Possibility?

[Zakabog]

Perhaps I'm just unfamiliar with the lingo being used here, but the words conclusive and possibility don't quite seem to make sense when both used in reference to the same evidence.

Ok there are two things to prove, A and B. Evidence C is conclusive evidence that A happened but also might have caused C.

The rock was conclusive evidence of martian meteorites on earth, which possibly led to cross-seeding.

Think of it this way, someone breaks into a store, shoots a clerk in the leg, and steals all the money from the registers. A security tape shows the person shooting the clerk holding an empty bag, then they're off camera, then they run past the camera with the empty bag now full. It's conclusive evidence that the person shot a clerk, but only hints at them stealing them money.

Re:now the question is

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe look at two papers - he claims he found a meteorite carrying some weird liveforms in India during some 'Red rain'.

Once Upon a time....

[Anonymous Coward]

there was a man named dog. He created a rock in his image and from this rock he split it into two rocks. One went to mars and one went to venus. These rocks had pebbles and civilization started. All the manly rocks on mars screwed up on mars. Nuked the hell out of the place leaving shattered rocks and dust everywhere. The women rock on venus didn't do much better. They're rage and post-magma-syndrome created a violent atmosphere. So the remaining rocks on both planets went to earth and lived in sedimentary harmony. The end! ps: i got drunk b4 the canucks game :P

A little ahead of things?

[toxic666]

There isn't any kind of evidence there ever was life on Mars, yet this article raises the speculation that life from Mars survived a high temp impact, ejection through the harsh radiation and temperatures of space and "cross-polinated" earth?

This is not supported by any facts and is pure speculation. It doesn't even qualify as junk science.

The authors should wait until we get some data back from Mars confirming that life was even present there before publishing these kind of claims.

Re:A little ahead of things?

[CheshireCatCO]

Well, how possible this is depends on, among other things, your interpretion of ALH84001.

And we know that organisms can survive in open space: the found some still-viable critters on one of the Ranger spacecraft when an Apollo mission brought some bits back from the Moon.

Re:A little ahead of things?

[mopomi]

There is a large body of research looking into the possibility of panspermia. The impact is likely to destroy organisms on a large impactor (this is not guarenteed), but not necessarily on the rocks that are subsequently ejected into space (those rocks almost certainly DO NOT come from the original impactor). On the subsequent fall to the other planet, the rocks are small enough and moving "slow" enough that, on the whole, they don't actually heat up much (and in fact, parts of them may cool off).

Re:A little ahead of things?

[CptNerd]

It was Apollo 12 that brought back bits of one of the Surveyor soft-landers. They brought back a piece of insulation, and when they examined it back on earth they found either a spore or a bacterium deep in the middle. So, it wasn't exactly exposed to all the conditions of space, except for the heat, cold and hard radiation.

And of course, there's also the bacterium that withstands high doses of radiation, Deinococcus radiodurans. NASA's been looking at it, apparently:

"Meet Conan the Bacterium"

Re:A little ahead of things?

[thejackhmr]

There isn't any kind of evidence there ever was life on Mars.

There isn't any kind of evidence you have any idea what you're yakking about...

This article raises the speculation that life from Mars survived a high temp impact, ejection through the harsh radiation and temperatures of space and "cross-polinated" earth?

Yes, actually, that's exactly what it does. Well done U got it...

This is not supported by any facts and is pure speculation.

Specualtion in science is called "theory." The supporting facts are in the article, you must have missed them. Better read it again or something, I don't know. If I were you I'd give up and move on to something else...

the world's best primer on Mars

Re:A little ahead of things?

[Maxim Kovalenko]

On a slightly more philosophical note...if the day eventually comes that this type of data arrives...would we even recognize cross-pollinated life for what it is?

Re:A little ahead of things?

[lovecult]

The article indeed is indeed wild speculation. It does not, however, make any claims. What it dies do, is spell out obvious implications. It just so happens, that these implications are quiet wonderful, and happen to inspire the imagination. It is one of the most beautiful aspects of science, that it can inspire human creativity, as well as be a product of that same creative impulse.

Re:A little ahead of things?

[pkarlos_76]

FYI: NASA Scientists have concluded that if there was or is water then some form of life must have existed as proven by fossilized examples found on Mars.

*** One step to softening the shock to humanity as a whole that there really is intelligent life out there. Anyhow, time to get on with my real life! ***

Re:A little ahead of things?

[mbone]

There is a lot of very hard science behind this.

It is easy to tell if material has been shocked (accelerated) by looking at the crystal structure in a microscope. As you might expect, many meteorites show clear evidence of being very roughly treated, equivalent to many thousands of g's, which no life can survive.

However, some of the Martian meteorites have hardly been shocked at all, much less melted, in their trip from Mars to Earth.

This seemed very surprising, so there has been a lot of study of this in the last 10-15 years, both theoretical (mathematical modeling) and experimental (high velocity impact tests), mostly funded by NASA.

It turns out that when there is a large, high velocity impact, on a terrestrial planet (say, a rock 20 kilometers in diameter or larger), the impacting body is vaporized, as is the ground where it hits. This sets up a shock wave in the planet, which can bounce off of internal layers, and push up and out large sections of the surface. Some of this material will go into space, some with escape velocity.

If the body is large enough, accelerations for some of the surface pushed out to escape velocity will be small - less than 10 g's. Translation : If you were wearing a spacesuit, and were incredibly lucky enough to stand in the right place at the right time, you could probably survive this. Bugs certainly could.

Some of this material, once ejected, will get to the Earth from Mars (or, Vice Versa), pretty quickly, in a few orbits (years). This is not long enough to sterilize a reasonably big chunk of rock (say, 1 meter diameter), which also will not be sterilized on re-entry in our atmosphere. We know that bacteria can survive in space for a decade as spoors - we've brought them back.

So, there is a good mechanism to transfer biological material from Earth to Mars and Mars to Earth. The inescapable conclusion is that the biological histories of these two planets are linked together. This has not yet percolated much down into the popular culture, but it will.

We have met the Martians and they are us.

Re:A little ahead of things?

[CheshireCatCO]

It doesn't seem to have been insulation as foam inside a TV camera. While that is indeed sheltered somewhat, it'd be useful to know how dense and thick the foam was. A small peice of light foam isn't going to block a lot of radiation. I've certainly never heard anyone argue that it would do so, although some do claim that the bacteria contaiminated the sample after it arrived back on Earth.

Either way, while I don't think it proves that the little buggers can survive in space, it's reason to consider the possibility.

"identical" fingerprint, then a better match?

[Anonymous Coward]

So basically what they are saying is that a lot of meteorites have a (very) similar composition. Some end up on earth, some on mars - and yet others are probably still Out There looking for a reasonably sized planet-like entity to smash into.

Given that the article first states that Shergotty and Bounce match like a fingerprint, only to go on saying they found a better match somewhere else leads me to think more in the lines of the rocks being "extremely close" rather than "identical".

It is also probably likely that a meteorite on its way to either planet could shed rock and ice from its tail on the one before crashing into the other, thereby elimiting any "direct" contact between earth and mars.

Still waiting for the martians to make contact...

Penhead

Re:"identical" fingerprint, then a better match?

[Farrside]

Time to re-read "Inherit the Stars" by James P. Hogan...

Re:"identical" fingerprint, then a better match?

[Oligonicella]

"meteorite ... shed rock and ice from its tail"

An excellent indication of your depth of astronomy.

I love science...

[Anonymous Coward]

"The discovery of Bounce raises the distinct possibility that life arising from a common source could have existed for a time on both worlds."

But only when it is actually USED. The above statement is so full of holes that I could throw 'bounce' through them.

Re:now the question is

[mehitabel]

I heard physicist and astrobiologist Paul Davies give a talk on this subject just yesterday ;) Davies proposes that the lower gravity of Mars makes it more likely for Martian rocks to reach earth, than vice versa, though transit both ways is statistically viable. He also suggests that the faster cooling rate of the Mars crust, the lack of a global ocean, and some of the largest volcanoes in the solar system made Mars a more favorable place for microbial life to form. http://aca.mq.edu.au/Research/research2003.html

Re:now the question is

[Anonymous Coward]

So, can your God create a rock that even he could not lift?

Possibly conclusively evident trueisms

[MisterLawyer]

>"provides conclusive evidence [...] of the possibility of cross-seeding"

Does conclusive evidence of a possibility make it true?

Re:Possibly conclusively evident trueisms

[Anonymous Coward]

>"Does conclusive evidence [...] make it true?

It's fun to take words out of sentences to completely change the sentences originally meaning isn't it?

Re:Possibly conclusively evident trueisms

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only does he say almost the same thing twice. The first instance is simply wrong.

"conclusive evidence" isn't even in the article.

Re:Possibly conclusively evident trueisms

[lovecult]

I believe that the "conclusive evidence" reffers to the possibilty of truth.

It dies not refer to "evidence of cross-seeding"

lets not make the mistake of collapsing levels of semantic disinction here.

Re:Possibly conclusively evident trueisms

[Oligonicella]

You DO know that the little "..." is supposed to only remove non-essential info, don't you Mr. Lawyer?

Sensationalism

[geeber]

It's worth pointing out that the quote about "conclusive evidence" mentioned in the abstract does not come from any of the NASA scientists. The full quote reads, "So far, no one has broached the bigger implication: Bounce provides conclusive evidence not only of Martian meteorites on Earth, but also of the possibility of cross-seeding." and comes from the article author himself, a UPI science and technology editor and is pure speculation. I would expect the NASA scientists to be considerably more cautious and not be making claims of conclusive evidence right off the bat.

Re:Sensationalism

[thejackhmr]

I would expect the NASA scientists to be considerably more cautious and not be making claims of conclusive evidence right off the bat.

Settle down... The author isn't claiming what you think he is. He is simply saying that "the possibility of cross-seeding" is now substatially greater than it was before this huge discovery.

Re:Sensationalism

[shadowbearer]

Yeah. Danged media. Not a bad article, tho, despite the speculation. But this got me:

Article quote: The way Opportunity's luck has been going, it would not be surprising to learn the rover has detected Martian microbes.

Although it's not equipped to, like the Viking landers were. Opportunity is a geological explorer, not a biological one.

SB

Re:Sensationalism

[sandrift]

Thank you! This is a very important point.

Having searched for shergottite meteorite signatures using orbital data from Mars (no luck yet), and being a close colleague of many of the MER science team members, I can confirm that NO ONE on the MER team is suggesting anything about life on Mars or cross-contamination based on this week's (or any other week's) results.

Although one of the instrument teams (Alpha Particle X-ray Spectrometer - APXS) is suggesting that Meridiani could be the source region of one class of Martian meteorites, their data (bulk chemistry) cannot actually tell us that. (It's also worth noting that the Meridiani plain is believed to be billions of years older than the rocks in this class of meteorites.) Those who were watching the press conference (the press release ignores this) heard that another instrument, the Mini-TES (Thermal Emission Spectrometer), determined that the mineralogy of Bounce is similar in some ways, but NOT identical, to the shergottite meteorite that the APXS team favors, although it IS different than the majority of the rock types observed from orbit.

Re:Sensationalism

[geeber]

Well, first of all the author says, and I quote, this "provides conclusive evidence not only of Martian meteorites on Earth." Non of the scientists are using the words "conclusive evidence," only science journalists.

Second, I was actually taking an issue with the slashdot posting, which muddles the whole issue by leaving out the critical phrase in the quote, "So far, no one has broached the bigger implication:" and makes it seem like the scientists ARE saying this provides conclusive evidence.

So no. I don't think I will settle down.

Bounce may be the first recorded evidence...

[gentlewizard]

... of offshoring to India.

"Bounce's chemical composition exactly matches that of a meteorite that hit the ground in Shergotty, India, on Aug. 25, 1865...NASA scientists are convinced Shergotty, EETA79001 and Bounce -- and maybe a couple dozen other Martian rocks that found their way to Earth -- were ejected from Mars by the impact of a large asteroid or comet."

Cross seeding

[dj245]

Mars rover Opportunity has found a rock (nicknamed 'Bounce') that "provides conclusive evidence not only of Martian meteorites on Earth, but also of the possibility of cross-seeding."

Nobody tell the KKK or they'll start showing up at NASA press conferences to protest. Those guys have way too much time on their hands.

Re:Cross seeding

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't tell Christians. Onan spilled his seed on the ground and God killed him for it. Perhaps Onan had a really powerful ejaculation and shot it all the way to Mars!!

Re:Cross seeding

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, like that religious nut who sabotaged the launch pad in the movie Contact.

Re:Cross seeding

[Anonymous Coward]

The important question is: Will USA require all aliens of Martian descent to be fingerprinted before entering the Homeland? ... Queue jokes about aliens and fingers or lack thereof.

Hope influencing science

[Klatoo55]

What these scientists are overlooking is that all that the rock shows is that a rock could achieve escape velocity. There would need to be life present, and pretty hardy life at that, in order to be moved to Earth. Everyone keeps saying that life is everywhere in the Universe, why not have it evolve independently on both planets (or on just one). I would love nothing more than a confirmation of cross-pollination to be discovered, but we just don't know enough to say that this is conclusive.

Re:Hope influencing science

[Anonymous Coward]

... which is why it's so bad of the OP to suck the word "conclusive" out of his thumb.

The article itself is exactly what you describe.

Re:Hope influencing science

[zakezuke]

Everyone keeps saying that life is everywhere in the Universe, why not have it evolve independently on both planets (or on just one).

Because a galaxy who's life spawned by common seeds, i.e. trans stellar mater and cross planet pollenization makes it a hell of alot easer for sci-fi writers to justify the fact that all aliens are somewhat humanoid in appearence.

Well, THAT explains why...

[SnappingTurtle]

... Martians in science fiction are so darned humanoid.

Re:Well, THAT explains why...

[Gleapsite]

... Earthlings in science fiction are so darned Martian.

Re:Well, THAT explains why...

[Spolster]

shouldn't that be 'martianoid'?

Re:Religious people

[Anonymous Coward]

THERE IS NO GOD or spoon

now NASA has admitted that...

[me98411]

... the rover experiments were indeed faked on earth. What more evidence do you want? ;)

Re:now NASA has admitted that...

[Oligonicella]

Perhaps a link to your assertion.

You mean...

[chendo]

God had a relationship with Mars -WHILE- dating Mother Earth? BLASPHEMY!

Re:You mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

since mars is usually referred to as a male, that may explain why life on mars did not thrive...

(and that "God" is bisexual...)

Re:You mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, he dated this Mary chick while she was married to some guy named Joe to. I hear they even had a kid together.

Nostalgia

[Decameron81]

Interplanetary pong!

Diego

Re:Which was first? THE EGG

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet martians are black, white people would have taken control of other plantests of they were the majority...

WTF..

[Anonymous Coward]

is seeding theory?

Familiar breed of rock found on Mars

[PsiPsiStar]

Scientists announced recently that the rock found on Mars, nicknamed "Bounce," was of a breed of rock similar to the pet rocks popular in the sixties.

Pet rocks are the primitive ancestors of modern pseudo-pets such as tamagotchi and Aibo.

This has led some scientists to suggest that the curious human habit of creating emotional attachments to purposeless inanimate objects may actually be extraterrestrial in origin.

Re:Familiar breed of rock found on Mars

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate people trying to be funny... well I guess I hate people tryint to be funny and getting their facts wrong.... Pet Rocks IIRC didn't exist except in you pea-brain imagination till the mid 70's I want to say 74-75 I'm too lazy to look it up but I DO KNOW there was no such animal as pet rocks in the sixtys; unless it was an acid trip.

Re:Familiar breed of rock found on Mars

[PsiPsiStar]

Me, I hate people with no senses of humor. Especially when they're too lazy to look things up. And post anonymously. And use acronyms.

but it was 1975 apparently.


Pet Rocks were a 1975 fad originated in California by salesman, Gary Dahl.

http://www.virtualpet.com/vp/farm/petrock/petroc k. htm

Re:Fascinating! -- offtopic, but necessary

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard on IRC that Bill dies in a really predictable manner. Presumably he's stabbed, or maybe beheaded, or thrown out of a building or something boring like that.

Bet the creationists LOVE this one

[revscat]

Great. I keep hoping that we'll find definitive proof of abiogenesis occuring sponteaneously on another planet, and now look what the gods of chaos have given us: a huge, obvous excuse to give to the creationists. I'm sure we'll see this one crop up on the 700 Club if-and-when they ever find 100%-sure-fire-can't argue-with-that proof that life existed on Mars.

"But God planted the seeds of life in Eden, and he did smith the earth with a big rock, and it did spew forth flotsam into the universe, and it was good."

Grrr.

Re:Bet the creationists LOVE this one

[StrawberryFrog]

Why? The details of how and where life that-currently-resides-on-Earth evolved in no way damage the evolutionary account or supports the creationist one. Quite the reverse.

Re:Bet the creationists LOVE this one

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a one man crusade, I for one is with him on this one. Religion is fucking stupid.

Re:Bet the creationists LOVE this one

[Anonymous Coward]

But God planted the seeds of life in Eden, and he did smith the earth with a big rock

I object to the way my name is being used.
-Robert Smith

P.S. I have a big johnson

Re:Bet the creationists LOVE this one

[xaaronx]

Wow. I'm so overpowered by your eloquence that I can't help but be convinced.

Hoagland Was Right! Holy S#$!!

[sabat]

Richard C. Hoagland has been saying this for years, and to think I didn't pay attention just because he's a conspiracy theorist. He's been pounding on and on about how life here came from Mars. And now real evidence emerges that says that might actually be true -- it's living science fiction. See Hoagland's stuff at Enterprise Mission.

Holy sh#&!!

Re:Hoagland Was Right! Holy S#$!!

[GileadGreene]

(a) Hoagland is a crackpot. See for example the demolition job that Phil Plait at BadAstronomy.com did on Hoagland's claims

(b) The Bounce discoveries do not necessarily support the conclusion that life orginated on Mars and came to Earth. All they do is further support the notion that some of the meterorites striking Earth have a Martian origin. Whether or not those meteorites carried biological payloads is a whole different question.

Re:Hoagland Was Right! Holy S#$!!

[sabat]

To the moderators and the guy who replied: if my tongue were any further in my cheek, it'd be poking out. Please; Hoagland is a joke. But conspiracy theorists and crackpots (even money-grubbing ones) are funny. That makes me funny, by extension.

Hah.

We're all aliens?

[Galileo430]

I think it's amazing. I guess now when I make a joke about Micheal Jackson being from Mars I might actually be sort of right.

Certainly makes me think. Somewhere, Darwin is laughing...

Re:Fascinating! -- offtopic, but necessary

[Anonymous Coward]

nope, theres a twist, theres always a twist

Back here on earth...

[Anonymous Coward]

During the early eons of the solar system, planetary impacts were downright common. Given the relative proximity of Earth and Mars, it is easy to accept the possibility that materials propelled upward from one planet eventually could make their way to the other.

The first organisms on Earth originated around 3.5 billion years ago and maybe earlier. Back then, impacts from asteroids and comets still were common. It is conceivable that material ejected from Earth by those impacts could have landed on Mars carrying some of those organisms -- or their raw ingredients. The converse also is possible -- early organisms from Mars could have landed on Earth.

Meanwhile, back here on earth, fundamentalists still insist that everythying was created in seven days. :-|

Re:Back here on earth...

[luckyguesser]

Meanwhile, back here on earth, fundamentalists still insist that everythying was created in seven days. :-|

False! I created you 3 minutes ago!
This idea came from the atheist side of a Atheist vs. Christianity debate I watched on a tape. Creation was, of course, a big topic. I found this to be the atheist's one winning point. The audience who was there live voted at the end as to who they were more convinced by. The Christian representative won by 70%. (No word on what the demographic of the audience was like before the debate =(. )

Splunking?

[poohsuntzu]

Cross-seeding eh? I say it is merely a good old fashion, interstellar splunking competition.

well. mmm...

[zogger]

I saw it and read it completely differently. Well, except one part I'll get to we agree on.

I guess people are interpretating this according to their pre conceived "religiously held" beliefs.

Think on this, as an exercise taken from a generic macro evolutionist's standpoint. What are the odds of exact species arising at the same time on two different planets? Beyond practical chance? I think so. That indicates either poof simultaneous creation (or real dang close), or purposeful "seeding" or "cultivation".

Wouldn't the huge variance in natural selection come into play if it was true "random chance"? Of course, we still don't have exact "organisms" to compare****, but these preliminary findings over the past little while (the methane gas lately, more indications of water, etc) indicates that perhaps that "life" didn't evolve either place, but was seeded at both. There is good speculation that it-life- started at one or the other and got flung over the space fence, OR simultaneoulsy arrived somehow at both places, OR not just one or the other but both at the same time..

Also, no where in the bible (to become specific) does it preclude the possibility of life on other planets, simple or complex. I think too many have this vague notion that someone told them this as "fact", but it's just not there, basically, it's not addressed much,it's just not,it doesn't say yay or nay on it, the bible is more the allegorical and historical representation of "man's" history "on earth" primarily, not "the universe's" or even "another planet's" history, first by oral traditions, then eventually written down and translated to somewhat but not complete obscurity, IMO, over so many generations so that given it's hard to tell what is accurate, but the kernel of the storiy(ies) is still there, and it's remarkably similar all over our planet in many cultures and writings.

Almost all cultures with a good verifiable ancient record keeping system have stories of "other beings" and of "the whopper dang flood that sucked pretty bad" and of "weird large creatures that roamed the planet" early in *man's" history, and not all mammalian like "ice age" type animals, but pretty good descriptions of what were undoubtly reptile type animals as well. Funny they mostly all have that, unless one is to assume they were seriously advanced archeologists way back then, at least equivalent to 18th century representations that we are familiar with. Me, I am skeptical of that, very skeptical, it assumes a complexity of society there is little evidence of, my best guess is they had direct empirical evidence, because they were so non-chalant and matter of fact in their reportings of it.

Why would all these records have similar if there wasn't a large grain of truth there? Why would dissimilar cultures that had little contact with each other way, way, way back come up with other "life forms" in their own cultures early historical records?

My bottom line is "smoke=fire", as I am a skeptic by nature, and I am *most* skeptical of those who simply insist that "smoke" = "in 100% of the cases, there is absolutely no chance of fire whatsoever".

IMO, there's something to it (yes, I am of the faith most ridiculed here),but I really have found there's a lot to it just applying what science we really have (not what we think we have), and part of that - to me- simply must include the anecdotal testimony of "those that were there",our ancestors and their best attempts to keep some sort of historical and scientific records using the best techniques they had at the time; and as we have no handy time machine for checking other than archaeological records,and translations from ancient scripts, and the ability to look back and realise some times you have no adequate words to describe something just completely outside your capacity or general societal level of comprehension, you are lead to..consider them pretty good pieces of evidence.. You -any culture with designs on communicating with the future- can make an att

Re:Fascinating! -- offtopic, but necessary

[johnpaul191]

does that part REALLY matter?

i saw it last night and i will just say this.... it is a lot chattier than Vol. 1. There is more dialog and story and less graphic fighting and action scenes. it's not just the rest of the movie, it has a different feel to it all together. but i liked it.

side note, there is talk of a Vol. 3 being made in about 20 years. QT said he may film some stuff now with the current cast for flashback scenes, then shelf it for 20 years. i guess he wants Kill Bill to be his "man with no name" trilogy. cool!

no sabe, pero...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pienso que debemos prohibir bailar del negro.

Learn to examine

[empaler]

What would you then call the practices of the Skulls? The Freemasons?
Rituals are a way of getting weak-willed men to accept the way things are, and to work for the situation in the ruling class to not change.

Conclusive evidence of a possibility?

[bob65]

provides conclusive evidence ... of the possibility of cross-seeding.

Okay, that sure says a lot.

Re:Conclusive evidence of a possibility?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok this is getting to me now, so I have to reject this one with an example:

You CAN provide conclusive evidence of a possibility.

Thor Heyerdahl thought that people had reached Easter Island by raft from Peru. He built a balsa raft using pretty much the same stuff they would have had available, and sailed the raft over. By managing this, he provided pretty conclusive evidence that it was POSSIBLE that people could have got from Peru to Easter Island by raft. As it turns out, this was NOT what happened.

Hence Thor provided CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF A POSSIBILITY. He STILL couldn't say whether the thing he had proved was possible had actually occurred.

In this case, it seems that we have good evidence that rocks have been knocked off Mars and reached Earth, which gives evidence of the POSSIBILITY of life being transferred, in a very similar way to the possibility of people getting from Peru to Easter Island. But has life been transferred? We don't know, hence the POSSIBILITY.

Now stop making facetious arguments about abridged versions of a sentence which makes perfectly good sense.

Re:Conclusive evidence of a possibility?

[bob65]

Now stop making facetious arguments about abridged versions of a sentence which makes perfectly good sense.

First of all, what was wrong with my argument? I implied that "conclusive evidence of a possibility" doesn't say a lot, and I still believe it doesn't. All it says is that we are sure that it's not impossible. Secondly, did I ever say you can't provide conclusive evidence of a possibility? I don't know where you got that from.

Now stop making reduntant comments about my comments which make perfectly good sense.

Anybody know...

[pointzero]

What were the chance of finding two similar rocks on two planets which don't even seem to come from either one. Just think about it... we found this with a small robot scanning an area substantially smaller than the whole planet.

I'm going to get my tin foil hat... methinks aliens planed this.

They are

[empaler]

And they're working on getting them to the right location, too.

Gotta love Bush.

BioMetal Agenda?

[Grail]

So were the Mars rovers actually sent to Mars with the express purpose of determining the origin of BioMetal, to support the US government's militarisation of space? And did the Russians already beat them to it? http://www.planetbattlezone.com/

Why did NASA name the rock after Windows?

[SRain315]

"Bounce" is clearly a reference to our least favorite operating system.

Didn't Slashdot just request a few rocks named after Linux ("Name a rock, 'Tux'" in comments)?

Why is "geek-oriented" NASA dissing us so bad?

=-]

Which Happened First

[AssaultRifle]

So the chicken and the egg actually happened simultaneously. Of Course! Brilliant! Please send contributions to PO Box 12345 SnowJob Lane, OutThere. MilkyWay Galaxy.

Re:Which Happened First

[AssaultRifle]

The actions of the Anglo Saxosn leaders have shown the world that they have become the most ardent lickers of the Jews' assholes. As an Aryan I feel ashamed. Ummm, Saxosn? I assume Saxon. have shown the world that they have become the most ardent lickers of the Jews' assholes. Since when have the Vikings Licked Anyones Ass? And What the Hell Does that have to do with the Jews? The Saxons deem JESUS as their savior. If you are looking for a plow boy, look again. As an Aryan, I am ashamed as well, of you. Aryan, Jew, Jap, Cninc, Whetback, Whap, .... We are all HUMAN. Stop your racial dogma. Oh, Tell John Kerry I said Hi! Love Ya, Bye Bye.

Re:Which Happened First

[Anonymous Coward]

We, the Aryan must lead athe world not become slaves like the Saxons.

Eric Gustavson

1970

[Trolling4Dollars]

Sorry, you are wrong. I'm not human and I was born in 1970. Of course, I only recently found out about this. Quite a shock actually to find that out.

Ugh

[Transcendent]

Mars rover Opportunity has found a rock (nicknamed 'Bounce') that "provides conclusive evidence not only of Martian meteorites on Earth, but also of the possibility of cross-seeding.

This may be redundant, but find all the evidence you want of cross seeding and you still have the question as to where that life came from and how it was created.

Chicken or egg, you still have to wonder what the hell was before that.

Re:Ugh

[Tablizer]

This may be redundant, but find all the evidence you want of cross seeding and you still have the question as to where that life came from and how it was created.

You are right. It is a sticky question. The true origin of the first life may never be known. At the best one might find the earliest known micro-fossil *so far*, but can never tell where its source originated from because many possible sources, such as gas giants, don't preserve any fossil history in rocks.

I suppose if life with a roughly similar genetic code was found in/from another solar system that was older than our solar system, then it might rule out our solar system as the origination point. Thus, we might eliminate some origins some day, but I doubt find the single for-sure *first* source because any source of life you can find could have been seeded. The single originating event probably happened in a tiny spec of real estate that is either long gone or the ultimate needle in a haystack.

Re:Fascinating! -- offtopic, but necessary

[Anonymous Coward]

The actions of the Anglo Saxosn leaders have shown the world that they have become the most ardent lickers of the Jews' assholes. As an Aryan I feel ashamed. Eric Gustavson

Panspermia.

[Tatarize]

Don't get me wrong... but I don't think I'll ever buy this theory without one heck of a smoking gun.

Give me amino acid cohesion due to the environment of early Earth anytime. I'll take lightning and ooze over God anyday, but Mars... um, no.

That's not very nice!

[Neuropol]

How would you like it if a big asteroid came along and knocked your planet off it's axis?

1 in ?

[deathcloset]

seeding is an awfully loaded way of referring to material from celestial bodies winding up on each other.

What are the chances that life could survive an impact big enough to expel this material? imagine the size of such an impact on earth. Between the impact's turbulence (I speculate a mix of vaccum, shock waves and super hot atmosphere - not to mention lots of molten stuff) wouldn't the journey through space be even more harrowing?

Then the re-entry on the destination, that can't be a walk in the park.

The common source?

[Slinky Saves the Wor]

Could it have been a planet located at the position where the current asteroid belt is? Something hit it, blew it up, rocks fell everywhere and so on.

Re:The common source?

[meringuoid]

Could it have been a planet located at the position where the current asteroid belt is?

Probably not... current thinking on the asteroid belt is that it consists of material that was never able to coalesce into a planet in the first place because of the gravitational influence of Jupiter.

Cross-Seeding?

[Ziviyr]

Why am I thinking pan-spermiogenesis?

There's a documentary...

[DrMorpheus]

Actually it arose on both. But Martians later came over to Earth and started experimenting with our nearest humanoid ancestors.

Check out this documentary.

What kind of language is that???

[Alex Belits]

"So far, no one has broached the bigger implication: Bounce provides conclusive evidence not only of Martian meteorites on Earth, but also of the possibility of cross-seeding."

How is that supposed to be read -- "...provides conclusive evidence ... of the possibility of cross-seeding"? How can anything provide a conclusive evidence of a possibility of such a thing? It demonstrates one of _prerequisites_ for cross-seeding, but the _possibility_ of cross-seeding does not depend only on the fact that the matter of Martian origin could reach Earth.

This is not the same as making the hypothesis of cross-seeding more plausible (or "possible" as in "possible to consider") -- ceratinly the discovery of matching materials on two planets does that, but "conclusive evidence" of the possibility of cross-seeding will only appear when organic matter similar to Earth organism will be found on Mars or meteorites -- it's beyond silly to call cross-seeding "possible" if there is nothing to cross-seed with.

In fact, this rock isn't even a proof that the origin of the meteorite is Martian -- it doesn't look like other rocks on Mars, so it may be produced by volcanic activity on Mars, or it may be from somewhere else. If anything, it's a good reason to research the Martian "geology", and maybe check the chemical composition of its moons.

Re:What kind of language is that???

[TheInternet]

How is that supposed to be read -- "...provides conclusive evidence ... of the possibility of cross-seeding"? How can anything provide a conclusive evidence of a possibility of such a thing?

I see your point, but I think the intention was something along these lines:

"Bounce not only provides conclusive evidence of Martian meteorites on Earth, but also supports the possibility of cross-seeding."

- Scott

Re:What kind of language is that???

[Alex Belits]

If so, why not just say it, and have a valid point clearly stated?

Foggy language and foggy thinking are like chicken and egg -- it doesn't matter which one was first, but certainly one comes from the other.

SCI-FI novel recommendation

[Anonymous Coward]

The entire "Giants" series by James P. Hogan. The first book title is "Inherit the stars"

Slightly OT, but I enjoyed reading it so much
more than 10 years ago that whenever I hear about
life on Mars it comes immediately to mind.

And nevermind 3

[Kjella]

3. Mankind is Special(TM)

Sure they may be aliens out there, but they're well, creations like a dog or a housefly. I'm sure those that seek a reason can find a way to separate man into something special, something unique above all other living beings in the Universe. It's not like the idea of saying "We're God's own/special/blessed people" is a new one.

Kjella

Catholicism

[theblacksun]

I was raised a weird half-Catholic thing, but I did spend a good deal of time in Catholic school (not for religious reasons, educational. My family is pretty open-minded). I'm gonna tell you right now there's a good whallop of horseshit in there. For example if you defend the right to choose you will get brow-beat with emotional and flawed-logic arguements until you shut up cause you can't keep up. And the attitude towards sex is immature IMHO.

However, compared to some of the more Fundementalist Christian sects, Catholics are party god damned animals. If I was raised Lutheran I wouldn't have made it.

What really frightens me though are the crazies that run out and preach to the masses. They like to tell me how I feel about things, and I don't think anyone who's so sure of that is right in the gulliver.

Re:Catholicism

[Magickcat]

Your family were apparently "open minded" enough for you to masquerade as a Catholic when you were in fact not one, in order to gain the benefits of a Catholic education. Perhaps you yourself were the source of the smell you encountered.

Re:Catholicism

[iocat]

I ended up at a Catholic high school (for disciple reasons, not religious ones, although I am Catholic). No one there had any problems with non-Catholics attending for the education. It's part of the whole "be nice to everyone / evangalism" of the Catholic church to be pretty open to non-Catholics attending their schools. As long as they respected the Catholic traditions of the school -- not fucking around during prayers, etc -- it was no big deal.

Like the kid from Mexico who went to my summer camp. No one expected him to say the pledge in the mornings, but he was expected to stand quietly while the other kids did.

That said, it is amazing how a Catholic school will tell you a diversity of opinions is ok on issues like Social Justice, Literature and Science, but abortion is flat-out murder no matter what.

so.....

[metallikop]

So men ARE from mars! In that case, lets send a probe over to Venus.

Re:Proving a negative

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously have Weapons Of Mass Destruction.
Please stand by while we invade your neighborhood.

Thank you and have a nice day.

"Mission to Mars"

[AllNicksWereTaken]

In "Mission to Mars", it was practically the same thing... in the end, the alien explained that they sent one capsule that seeded Earth with life. (Ooops, sorry to spoil the movie. It's old anyway.)

Re:"Mission to Mars"

[PhxBlue]

Hey, you may have saved someone the ordeal of sitting through the movie. They should thank you. :)

Re:now the question is

[obby.net]

Jesus fucking christ. Someone MOD THIS UP, ignore the grammar and click the link. This url contains papers that describe LIVE EXTRATERRESTRIAL MICROBES WITH NO DNA AND STRANGE BIOLOGY! This should be all over the news.

how rocks get into space

[mehitabel]

sorry I posted this twice...

a meteorite impact on mars (or earth) could eject sizable rocks into space. there's not a lot of doubt about this.

a 1.7 km wide boulder screaming into earth at roughly 1/1000 the speed of light would make an estimated impact equivalant to a 100,000 megaton explosion. this would destroy a land area the size of California. collisions of this magnitude are thought to occur every hundred million years or so, and more frequently in the earliest history of earth. these are "small". the K/T event that many (with good evidence) believe ended the dinosaurs is estimated to have been a 10-20km rock that made the oceans boil and ejected huge amounts of material into low-earth orbit (and therefore faster bits could escape).

in contrast, the largest volcanic eruption in the history of earth is thought to be Fish Canyon, where 28 million years ago more than 5000 cubic km of magma was ejected with a force of maybe a few thousand megatons. this is enough material to cover california like 12m deep, but most stuff goes sideways not up, and the plume of such an event would not likley reach higher than the stratosphere (i.e. not reach orbit, let alone escape orbit). granted, mars has bigger volcanoes, lower gravity, etc.

nonetheless, I guess all I'm trying to say is that I think volcanoes ejecting rocks into space is orders of magnitude unlikely or at least far less likely than meteorites, which we think knock lots of stuff into space.

this is probably why hollywood has come out with a lot more meteor-impact end-of-the-world scenarios (a la "Deep Impact", "Armageddon"), but "Volcano" only destroyed L.A. ;)

a good paper:
N. H. Sleep, K. Zahnle. "Refugia from asteroid impacts on early Mars and the early earth." Journal of Geophysical Research. vol 103, No. E12, p. 529 (1998).

some of the other numbers:
http://www.nineplanets.org/meteorites.ht ml
http://www.decadevolcano.net/photos/keywords/c alde ra.htm

Hate to argue semantics, but...

[MisterLawyer]

The quote, verbatim and complete:

"Bounce provides conclusive evidence not only of Martian meteorites on Earth, but also of the possibility of cross-seeding."

This sentence expresses the idea that B provides conclusive evidence not only of M, but also of P.
This can be accurately rephrased as two assertions:

B provides conclusive evidence of M, and

B provides conclusive evidence of P.

In my original post, I did not choose to question the author's first assertion. I chose to question his second assertion.
For the sake of brevity, I chose not to quote his first assertion. I did the best I could to concisely quote his second assertion without changing the meaning of his assertion.

I think I did a good job of that, but reasonable minds can disagree.

I don't get it.

[StarKruzr]

Someone clue me in?

Re:I don't get it.

[AJWM]

The dialog at the end of your parent message is from the end of Jeff Wayne's musical version of "The War Of The Worlds". (Which has had mixed reviews but I rather enjoy.)

Yup

[StarKruzr]

I was just watching a couple of those I had downloaded from BitTorrent today. It's actually surprisingly good, despite the insipid female character.

Maybe off topic but UPI...

[fingerfucker]

Why are you citing sources such as UPI when posting in Slashdot? I find it hard to believe that sources other than UPI didn't cover the topics covered in UPI's article.

UPI's integrity as a news covering agency has disintegrated years ago and noone buys news from them any more. Just because robots like Google go fetch their articles doesn't mean they are any good.

UPI's integrity and news covering reliability has diminished to zero when a cult bought it, which dates back as long as 2000 which was followed by Helen Thomas leavingleaving in protest (UPI's leading reporter for over 20 years).

No, it wasn't

[Anonymous Coward]

> Water was tested in both the Gulf of Mexico and Indian Ocean for salinity. They apprarently
> discovered about the same time on both sides of the world a sudden drop. It wasn't a slight drop
> either. It was a major drop.

No, it wasn't.

Major ocean currents depend on salinity; one example is the Gulf Stream off the east coast of North America. The difference in salinity between the tropical oceans and the fresh (unsalted) wanted released by melting ice in the Arctic is one of the driving forces behind this major, major current.

If the salinity of the ocean changed, the salinity difference that drives the Gulf Stream would change, and people would NOTICE. It would NOT be subtle.

Re:No, it wasn't

[u-235-sentinel]

"If the salinity of the ocean changed, the salinity difference that drives the Gulf Stream would change, and people would NOTICE. It would NOT be subtle."

I didn't say it was subtle. I am suggesting it was a major flood in which everyone noticed :-)

Re:No, it wasn't

[saforrest]

I think the person is claiming that the salinity drop occurred a few thousand years ago, when the flood was supposed to have occurred. By implication ey's arguing that this serves as evidence for a literal Biblical flood, which is of course noticeable and unsubtle.

Ey didn't explain how they supposedly gathered salinity data for a relatively precise date several thousand years in the past, though.

Should Martian life be brought back to Earth?

[JimC93SW2]

Today's NYTimes.com (free registration req'd) http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/19/opinion/19JUDS.h tml?th has an opinion piece discussing whether materials from Mars - which could contain life-forms - should be brought back to Earth. After mentioning "The War of the Worlds" and giving the examples of smallpox from Europe devastating Native North Americans, and the spread of HIV from monkeys to humans, the author mentions NASA's precautions, but further cautions that "Another, less careful space agency from another country might manage to bring rocks back to Earth before NASA". (Huh?)

Interesting article, overall, though.