Slashdot Mirror
Enormous Amount of Frozen Water Found on Mars
schweini writes "Space.com is reporting that the Mars Express probe's MARSIS (Mars Advanced Radar for Subsurface and Ionospheric Sounding) experiment has detected and measured an enormous amount of water ice near Mars' south pole, which would be sufficient to submerge the whole planet's surface underneath approximately 10m of water on average."
Total first post recall
Wannabe explorers everywhere just shat in their pants.
But before we can have our Mars colony we still have to take out thet tendees.htm (Bilderberger'06 Attendee List) would want to let us go there.
trash because I don't see why this parasitical scum http://prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/110606A
Looking at the technical problems such as radiation protection (Mars has no magnetic
field to deflect particles btw), designing shelters and then bringing in the heavy
equipment for building all those cool domes that are on the covers of Robert Heinlein's
books and solving hell of a lot of other problems...
taking out the trash is in comparison a minor, straightforward chore.
There's no such thing as "Evolutionism", and I, for one, resent your attempt to equate science to religion. Your inability to comprehend the theory evolution in no way discredits the science behind it.
Two, I guess ;)
-- Cheers!
Well given that he apparently, like most creationists, has absolutely no idea what evolution is (hint: its not about how life began) you really can't expect much from him.
Well given that he apparently, like most creationists, has absolutely no idea what evolution is (hint: its not about how life began) you really can't expect much from him.
But surely people like him are living proof that at least SOME of us DID descend from monkeys...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I live in Nevada, you insensitive clod!
So, is that an Imperial enormous amount, or a metric enormous amount?
Just making sure I have this straight, it's (in climbing order of magnitude)
huge
enormous
gigantic
stupendous
???
Get your Ass on Mars !!
That's absurd, I'm a staunch Christian and look forward to the discovery of extra-terrestrial life. If they have a religous background that's incompatible with my religion, we'll see how it works out. However, with my current lack of evidence, I tend to believe that the ideas of Clarke's Rama series (that God exists and that is constantly trying to create a universe that is devoted to Him and somehow compatible with my beliefs) is true.
Whether the Pat Robertson's of the world agree with it's compatibility, it doesn't matter. The religous conservatives dont define the world. It's the crazy religious liberals that do including Jesus himself, Peter, Paul, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Wesley (my background is most influenced by the Methodists), and, in my opinion, John Paul II. I've learned over my religious experience (which is acknowledgedly limited doing to my age (only 21) and devotion to more concrete science and engineering) that it's ridiculous to listen to any supposed authority without judging it for yourself, including even a literal interpretation of the Bible (I had a girlfriend once who claimed that Revelations was likely largely figurative, but somehow didn't stretch that out to make Genesis the same.)
By the way, I don't feel thats hypocritical because I still believe in the Bible, and the idea that the new law of the New Testament is absolute (love your neighbor, etc.) I just don't follow the idea that everything in the translations should be taken literally (e.g. 'Witches' is best interpreted as potion-makers in the Old Testament, homosexuality is usually referred to in regard to rampant sex without regard, which was particularly dangerous in the age before real medicine, trying to implement Democracy in Iraq isn't mentioned at all, and I don't see a damn thing about using the word fuck, shit, or ass in anything that I've read.) The only thing that I see as applicable is to not to shake someone else's faith by doing particular things, and I like to think I do my best to not do that, while influencing people such as my younger brother and friends to not be taken in by the most ridiculous parts of our religion.
Two, I guess ;)
Woah! Careful, you don't want to overdo it.
For the naysayers..
That's what you humans think!
Where is the cowboyneal option?
First post = troll. Cleverly worded post designed to enrage others = flamebait.
It's not as if we don't have centuries worth of experience in that.
"Death to the heathens !"
Wasn't that the film with "Wet Max" as internal working title?
(hint hint: Evolutionary theory doesn't explain where or what the root of life. In other words, how did the first cell that every living organism derived from come into being. It merely depicts organisms abilty to adapt to their ever changing habitat. Or did I miss something? Where that cell originated from, I think, is incomprehendable by your or my monkey brains. Much like the infinity of the universe.
The first cell probably originated from molecules that were most successful at creating copies of themselves (for example through auto-catalytic reactions) before being broken up again by radiation.
You've won the Slashdot "Pedant of the Day" award. Keep up the fine work and you'll help advance the cause of pedantry worldwide!
Funny...
...millions of atheists orgasmed simultaneously, and then were silent. ;)
Of course they went silent because a load of conservative christians came by and shot them for daring to experience sexual pleasure which did not result in childbirth.
I might be aware that that line of reasoning is nuts
When you became a Christian you automatically lost your right to declare anybody else's reasoning as nuts. We know what you believe and as a consequence, your right to describe any idea as absurd is therefore permanently revoked.
(hint hint: Evolutionary theory doesn't explain where or what the root of life. In other words, how did the first cell that every living organism derived from come into being. It merely depicts organisms abilty to adapt to their ever changing habitat. Or did I miss something?
The point is that the theory of evolution (in the normal sense of it) deals with everything after the first cell, once the mechanisms for mutation and selection were in place. Creationists seem to not grasp that half the time, thinking that because evolution doesn't explain how life began (as it shouldn't) it must be wrong. It's like saying that all of geology is wrong because it doesn't explain how the earth formed; we have other theories and branches to deal with that.
Where that cell originated from, I think, is incomprehendable by your or my monkey brains.
Not really, various theories exist with varying degrees of observation backing them up. Usually some form of selection is used were complex life forms get built up from simple molecules (similar to evolution in some ways in that regard).
One theory (I'm probably butchering the details as I'm filling in blanks as I write) is that over time by pure chance a set of molecules was created inside an oil bubble that catalyzed the creation of more like molecules. The natural chemical reactions, as laboratory experiments show, would have led to a decent amount of precursor molecules from which to build such copies. Over time this led to nucleotides and then RNA by a long process of ever increasing complexity (errors happen, the good ones pass on). Now RNA can both perform functions and store information, its DNA and Proteins in one package. Over time these RNA based proto-cells would become more complex, forming amino acids and then proteins. DNA would replace RNA for information storage although RNA would still remain in certain basic pathways (ie: making proteins and copying DNA, essentially the functions needed for the described proto-cells to become modern cells).
Remember that this took tens of millions of years and occurred in large sections of the planet, only one needed to be successful. Furthermore it likely happened on billions of planets and so even a one in a billion chance makes life evolution likely (the galaxy doesn't seem to be overflowing with life so the odds of life don't seem massive).
Hey, this is a family site!
If I may add to this, if you look at the things that shake another's "faith in their fellow man", you'll find that most of them can fit under the 10 Commandments. That is, if you do things that could make people like other people less, you're probably sinning.. If you're loving and caring about others (even those that have harmed you), it's probably not sinning.