Possible Active Glacier Found On Mars

FireFury03 writes "The European Space Agency's Mars Express spacecraft has spotted an icy feature which appears to be a young active glacier. Dr Gerhard Neukum, chief scientist on the spacecraft's High Resolution Stereo Camera said 'We have not yet been able to see the spectral signature of water. But we will fly over it in the coming months and take measurements. On the glacial ridges we can see white tips, which can only be freshly exposed ice'. Estimates place the glacier at 10,000 — 100,000 years old."

Comments

Possible landing zone for a Mars Mission?

[Dr_Banzai]

This might be a good place to land a Mars mission because you could use the ice to create oxygen, water, fuel etc.

Re:Possible landing zone for a Mars Mission?

[CrackPipePls]

and more importantly, to cool beer :-)

Re:Possible landing zone for a Mars Mission?

[GodfatherofSoul]

I don't know, from the pictures that ice looks really dirty. Who'd want to drink any of that?

Re:Possible landing zone for a Mars Mission?

[Greyfox]

When it's a choice between that and your own urine, which has been reprocessed through the spaceship urine reprocessing system 700 times, the dirty ice will start to look mighty appealing.

Re:Possible landing zone for a Mars Mission?

[iknownuttin]

This might be a good place to land a Mars mission because you could use the ice to create oxygen, water, fuel etc....and keep the beer cold.

Re:Possible landing zone for a Mars Mission?

[Mikachu]

That's a silly thing to say. Ever seen some of the water you drink before it's been processed? That ice looks downright clean to me.

Re:Possible landing zone for a Mars Mission?

[GodfatherofSoul]

That was a joke.

Re:Possible landing zone for a Mars Mission?

[onkelonkel]

Statistically speaking every glass of water you drink contains water molecules which once passed through the bladder of Attila the Hun. Or something like that.

Re:Possible landing zone for a Mars Mission?

[TheThiefMaster]

Yeah, but its not the water molecules that are the problem. It's the other molecules mixed in with the water...

Re:Possible landing zone for a Mars Mission?

[just_forget_it]

Unless the ice is just frozen CO2.

Re:Possible landing zone for a Mars Mission?

[dreamchaser]

No, to MAKE beer, then cool it. Dried malt extract and hops pellets are far more compact than bringing lots of extra beer. Mars homebrew!

Re:Possible landing zone for a Mars Mission?

[sirmonkey]

mars microbrew FOR THE WIN!!!
*drools*

Re:Possible landing zone for a Mars Mission?

[Urkki]

When it's a choice between that and your own urine, which has been reprocessed through the spaceship urine reprocessing system 700 times, the dirty ice will start to look mighty appealing. Yes, because, you know, repeated artificial reprosessing of waste will wear out the water molecules. The electrons get all fractured, H-atoms may te twisted to wrong angles, little feces and urine particles may get stuck between the two H-atoms, and so on. Natural prosesses are much better because then the power of the Gaia (in this case the Martian Gaia) will be able to heal the damage in water molecules. And healthy water molecules will have the energy and will to keep themselves clean too, just like cats do.

Re:Possible landing zone for a Mars Mission?

[mcrbids]

When it's a choice between that and your own urine, which has been reprocessed through the spaceship urine reprocessing system 700 times, the dirty ice will start to look mighty appealing.

The water that pours out of your sink has been urine so many times, it's impossible to count. There's clean water, and there's dirty water. Various processes clean water, (such as evaporation & condensation) and various processes dirty water (such as drinking it) but that's all there is.

I remember reading a thesis which asserted that nobody alive today can drink a glass of water that doesn't contain at least 1 molecule of water which was in one of the infamous baths of England's King Louis. It's a cycle. Just because modern technology shortens the cycle, doesn't mean the cycle isn't there in the first place.

Get over it.

Re:Possible landing zone for a Mars Mission?

[Greyfox]

It's not so much where it's been as how it's been reprocessed. People don't really pay attention, but water has a distinct flavor and that flavor changes regionally. Distilled water tastes "flat" and "lifeless" to a lot of people and I'm sure that water that's been distilled from urine a few hundred times on a spaceship will not taste very good at all. A fresh source will surely appeal to the astronauts.

In any event, to follow your logic, drinking water from that "dirty" ice on Mars will afford the astronauts an opportunity that no one on earth has ever had before -- to drink water that someone hasn't peed in yet.

Re:Possible landing zone for a Mars Mission?

[jackpot777]

...the infamous nonexistence of England's King Louis.

There. Fixed it for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_England

Or maybe I should say voilà... comme neuf pour toi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_monarchs

*GASP*

[Anonymous Coward]

Kuato was right all along!!

Re:*GASP*

[ScrewMaster]

Well ... they say he's psychic.

Re:*GASP*

[Double_Duo_Decimal]

"Get your ass to mars!"

Sweet!

[scubamage]

The doctor in the article is named Dr. Neukem. If his first name is Duke, I would not want to be the one to contest his theory.

Re:Sweet!

[Velcroman98]

Sorry, his full name is; Dr Gerhard Neukum

Re:Sweet!

[Fx.Dr]

Why is that? It's not like he'd ever find you. Worst case scenario is that every six years he'd pop his head up to remind you that he's still around.

Re:Sweet!

[UncleTogie]

Sorry, his full name is; Dr Gerhard Neukum

Actually, his name is Gerhard Neukum. His title is Dr...

I'm a little mistrustful of someone who INSISTS that "white tips ... can only be freshly exposed ice"... There could be a number of other explanations, and I'd hope the team would consider those as well.

Re:Sweet!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a little mistrustful of someone who INSISTS that "white tips ... can only be freshly exposed ice"...

Agreed 100%. Perhaps now my "Mars is made of meringue" hypothesis will finally be taken seriously!

Re:Sweet!

[Anonymous Coward]

How did the parent get modded as a troll? It just looks like a harmless joke.

Re:Sweet!

[rucs_hack]

I'm a little mistrustful of someone who INSISTS that "white tips ... can only be freshly exposed ice"... There could be a number of other explanations, and I'd hope the team would consider those as well.

Given the amount of dut that moves around in the martian atmosphere, it seems reasonable to assume that white tips means new.

However, after flying over America for the first time a couple of years ago (only my second time in an airplane in forty years), I was amazed at how the ground looked either red or brown. I am assuming this isn't how those area's look on the surface, since no-ones ever said to me that America is mostly red, so I'm guessing that it takes a pretty dense covering of other material to hide a dominant subsurface coloration. These white tips on mars might be the same thing, not white at all when viewed close up. Extrapolating from glaciers on earth might not be a good plan, if that's what's occuring.

I mmay of course be being an inexperienced idiot.

Re:Sweet!

[AJWM]

You misunderstand (or somebody did).

It's not Duke Neukem, it's Doc Neukem.

Re:Sweet!

[goingforaslash]

Agree, could also be particles in the atmosphere between the 2 objects, the list is endless.

Re:Sweet!

[Scooter]

"This is unique, and there are probably more," said Dr Neukum.

If this was a line in a movie, no audience would ever buy it unless it was untitled "Ride My Red Rocket" and starred Mike Meyers as the mission leader, and the evil Dr Neukum.

Re:Sweet!

[funaho]

True it could just be that that spot on Mars is where the aliens keep all their cocaine. :)

Re:Sweet!

[master_p]

Hey, the first thing that came to mind when reading this article is exactly what you side. Isn't life funny?

Re:Sweet!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is that? It's not like he'd ever find you. Worst case scenario is that every six years he'd pop his head up to remind you that he's still around.

Like, forever ...

Here comes the Martian penguin movie...

[gumbo]

If you thought Hollywood was out of penguin movie fuel (after March, Happy Feet, and the other animated one that I can't remember the name of), this is just the thing they've been waiting for. Cute green Martian penguins dancing around on an iceberg. Fun for everybody!

Re:Here comes the Martian penguin movie...

[KingPunk]

... surfs up. that's the other.

Not a surprise.

[AJWM]

We've known there was ice on Mars for a century or more. It is visible from Earth through any reasonably good telescope. You know, those white things at the poles?

Sure, in winter they get bigger from frozen out CO2, but there's a year-round permanent cap of water ice. Glaciers, permafrost, pingoes and other signs of ice should not be a surprise. Okay, a glacier on the Martian equator might be a surprise, except perhaps on one of the Tharsis Bulge volcanoes or Nix Olympica (er, Olympus Mons to you young whippersnappers; now get off my lawn).

Yet people seem to be surprised every time there's the merest hint, or act like it's of some cosmic significance. Sheesh.

Re:Not a surprise.

[MightyMartian]

I think the pleasure out of this finding is yet more evidence that Mars is an *active* planet. We've known for over a century about Martian seasons, for quite some time about the vast dust storms, and recently there have been some tanatalizing hints of ongoing vulcanism, and now an active glacier. For a glacier to be active, it means there has to be some sort of hydrological cycle to replenish the ice.

Re:Not a surprise.

[wizardforce]

Okay, a glacier on the Martian equator might be a surprise, except perhaps on one of the Tharsis Bulge volcanoes or Nix Olympica (er, Olympus Mons to you young whippersnappers; now get off my lawn).

its location is at 47.5N, 28.4E so yes, very odd indeed.

Yet people seem to be surprised every time there's the merest hint, or act like it's of some cosmic significance. Sheesh.

yeah, a large percentage of the solar system's material consists of frozen water, no surprise by that account that water exists on Mars, what seems to be interesting here is how young it is and I presume the position as well. although if we were to find say liquid water anywhere nearby *that* would be far more interesting but no luck on the surface [confirmed that is] yet.

Re:Not a surprise.

[zappepcs]

I'll probably get modded as troll for this, but there is a great desire on much of this planet to ignore anything that is not written down in one of the 'good books'. Unfortunately, Mars was left out of that garden of eden scene... probably still somewhere on the cutting room floor of the FSM's dark room.

Needless to say, in North America, it is always surprising to find something that is not explained explicitly in one of the good books, even though god supposedly made everything. The possibility that there might be signs of life on Mars, outside the realms of this singular haven of life god created on Earth, is something that people want to forget very quickly. Besides that, what does ice on Mars have do with paying the rising interest rates of your ARM?

I for one welcome our solar system neighbors and their CO2 eating ways. Perhaps then we can all stop with the fighting about who has the one and true understanding of god on this planet.

Besides that, I simply cannot wait for the ID explanation of life on Mars. I can see that wing in the Creation Museum.

Re:Not a surprise.

[idontgno]

Besides that, I simply cannot wait for the ID explanation of life on Mars.

Leaving aside the (in my opinion) intellectual dishonesty of ID, a cool (and admittedly fictional) creationist take on the idea of life on Mars: Out of the Silent Planet by C. S. Lewis.

Nothing I'm aware of in creationist canon explicitly excludes the idea of life elsewhere in this universe. It's just not mentioned. Only the most closed-minded would insist "only the things described in $HOLYBOOK happened, nothing else!".

Re:Not a surprise.

[Chris Burke]

Yet people seem to be surprised every time there's the merest hint, or act like it's of some cosmic significance. Sheesh.

Well maybe this is just me, but I tend to be surprised or excited whenever the actual scientists involved are surprised or excited. Seems like they are the ones who would be best equipped to know what the significance is.

I'm pretty sure they are already aware of the Martian ice caps, so maybe there's something more significant to this then? Naw, you're right, it's better to use hindsight to say "that was obvious!" and brush it off.

Re:Not a surprise.

[Anonymous Coward]

Needless to say, in North America, it is always surprising to find something that is not explained explicitly in one of the good books, even though god supposedly made everything.

Please provide even a single example of such "surprise". With new species discovered every day, surely there must be limitless "surprise" to point to.

Re:Not a surprise.

[Shadowplay00]

Only the most closed-minded would insist "only the things described in $HOLYBOOK happened, nothing else!". Unfortunately that describes far too many these days. Even if you were to argue that's a small proportion of active Christians in the US, it's enough to affect attempts to teach science. Look at all the controversies over teaching ID in public schools: do you really think these schoolboard members are terribly open-minded?

Re:Not a surprise.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately that describes far too many these days.

Again, please provide even a single instance of anyone who claims that, for example, penguins don't exist because they aren't (TTBOMK) mentioned in the Bible.

Honestly, don't you at some level see anything inappropriate in abusing people for offenses you simply made up?

Re:Not a surprise.

[AJWM]

Scientists act surprised and excited at almost any discovery, partly because it either supports or disagrees with current theory, which in a relatively new field like planetology is interesting either way. But - and forgive me for being cynical - they also do it to encourage those who fund them to keep on funding them. If they'd said "ho hum, we expected that", how do you think the purse-string holders would react the next time the scientists went asking for money?

Yeah, it's an interesting find in the way any data about Mars is interesting. It's not - or shouldn't be - something that will shake the very foundations of planetology. Didn't anyone predict glaciers? If not, I hereby predict pingos, braided streams, and moraines -- although I think they've all already been observed.

Re:Not a surprise.

[AJWM]

Well, 47.5 N is hardly equatorial, but it is further south (by about 8 degrees) than the typical maximum winter extent of the north polar cap, so I'll grant you "odd" but perhaps not "very odd". (We have equatorial glaciers here on Earth at sufficient altitude, although they're disappearing rapidly.)

I wouldn't be surprised if significant traces of water (ice) are found all over Vastitas Borealis; if it was once a sea bottom (and it bears characteristics of such) there could be a lot left just under the surface (which would help preserve it).

The real question is whether they find sodium ;-)

Re:Not a surprise.

[bondjamesbond]

Vulcanism?? As in... Spock?

Re:Not a surprise.

[Chris Burke]

Be cynical all you want. I doubt you know enough about planetary climatology to have said whether or not young, active glaciers were probable based solely on the existence of ancient, permanent ice caps. But now that it has been discovered, it's easy for the cynical to say "Oh of course you would expect to find that, we already knew there was ice, duh". When there's simply more to the issue than that.

Nobody said that this should shake the very foundations of planetology, or anything even close to that. You're inflating their claims to enhance your cynical criticism in the same way you're inflating the obviousness of the discovery despite not having any scientific foundation for saying it is obvious to enhance your cynical criticism. Well the scientists don't think it's obvious -- they're not even completely convinced that they're seeing what they think they are -- and frankly scientific knowledge is a better basis for saying something is non-obvious than cynicism is a basis for saying that it is.

Re:Not a surprise.

[sumdumass]

Your completely off the mark here. The problem isn't people thinking that "if it isn't in the good book it doesn't exist". It isn't even close to that.

The problem with teaching science isn't anything to do with the bible. It is with how the science is being taught. It is being done in a way that excludes anything else. It is in effect calling religions wrong and to some extent, it (the people teaching it) specifically mentioned it being wrong. While that may be a true statement in your take on things, there is still this thing called freedom of religion and the separation of state.

This freedom of a religion and separation of church and state is a concept that say the government cannot push a religion on people, can't favor on over another and they cannot prevent one from being practiced. You cannot argue that going to a publicly funded school and being compelled by law to attend isn't the government sanctioning what is happening there. So when the science is presented in a way that little johnny or little susy comes home and say god is a liar or doesn't exist, this didn't happen because we learned about it in school, then we have a problem along this freedom of religion and church and state thing.

I personally feel that if the material is presented as a theory in the tradition sense with something saying simply that this is how science relates to things and so far it has been as accurate as we can test, things would be fine. I'm not impressed with these intelligent design ideas of teaching creationism as a philosophy course. Just don't make any definite statements and present it as it relates to science and there shouldn't be a problem.

I understand that people think it is absurd to downplay something like evolution and the big bang theory because they incorrectly think it is a fact that has been proven. The fact is, while it has become close to being shown as fact and it is generally accepted as true, it hasn't been proven to the extent some think it has. But your interpretation of something being the right way or the real way has just as much to do with this as some bible thumper's interpretation. You have as much freedom from religion as they have freedom of religion. You cannot claim their religion is anything as much as they cannot make you subscribe to their religion.

That is what this boils down to, and that is why the problem is in America and not other free countries (the constitution). It isn't for the most part and outright rejection of science but a rejection of the way science is being taught and how that teaching is attempting to deny other people's freedom of religion. And just like in anything else, when the government endorses the view, it kicks in constitutional problems.

I'm not saying that you won't find a few creationist who strictly think the bible is the only way, but you will find that the majority of people supporting ID or statements in science classes are the people who doesn't want the government going around claiming their religion is a fairytale or wrong and whatever else. If it wasn't for the freedom of religion and the freedom from religion, this wouldn't be a problem. But it is a problem and people are attempting to introduce ID as an fix.

Ask me about science as a religion, it goes a little more into explaining the "incorrectly think it is a fact that has been proven" I mentioned earlier. Of course people want to strongly deny religions convictions of scientific theories because then it would be obvious on the freedom of religion and seperation of church and state thing.

Re:Not a surprise.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is so stupid one hardly knows where to begin.

The Constitutions says that Congress shall make no law with respect to the establishment of religion. Science is not a religion. The founders knew that. Religious people know that. Everyone but who isn't either a) dishonest or b) a moron knows that.

It is not religion to believe that the sky is blue. Scientific beliefs are no different than believing the sky is blue. We believe it because we have empirical evidence that it is true. Religion is very specifically not like that.

Calling science a religion is like calling sitting still a sport.

Re:Not a surprise.

[biraneto]

Actually the universe according to ID is men centered. Men was created as the image of God. They may even find some excuses for some small simple life forms, but they wouldn't be able to explain why there is more advanced life forms in the universe than us. Good for then we still won't be effectively leaving this galaxy for the next centuries. :)

Re:Not a surprise.

[AJWM]

The "young" is yet to be demonstrated. (For that matter, so is whether or not this is really ice, but that seems a reasonable bet.) As for "active" -- if it's a glacier, it flows under the force of gravity, and either advances or (depending on temperature) the leading edge retreats; of course it's active.

TFA makes a big deal out of the exposed white areas, claiming that ice sublimates quickly on Mars. Well, some places it does, some places it doesn't. If it's exposed on the ridge peaks, that could be because a covering layer of dust was recently blown off -- or it could be that it was recently snowed (or frosted) upon. I'm not inflating their claims, perhaps the BBC is.

Re:Not a surprise.

[tompaulco]

I would think the ID explanation of life on Mars would most likely be the same as most scientists: "There isn't any."
Even if there was, nothing in the Bible says there is no life anywhere else. Jesus once said something to the affect of "I have other sheep which are not of this fold." As Jesus was a carpenter, I think we are not meant to take that literally. Most would say that refers to the Gentiles. But who knows for sure?

Re:Not a surprise.

[ScrewMaster]

On the other hand, blurring the distinction between science and religion is one of the basic tools of the anti-science crowd. Of course, that only works on minds that are already blurry. People that have a handle on what science is tend to automatically reject such attempts on grounds of utter ridiculousness. What's interesting about that is there's no great intelligence required: the fundamental principles of science and scientific method are open and easily understandable by anyone. Yet many people can't be bothered. It's the great tragedy of our times (well, one of them anyway.)

Re:Not a surprise.

[sumdumass]

You don't have to blur the distinction. Just don't attempt to disprove the religion. You see, saying something like Evolution is the theory that science used to X Y and Z is not the same as saying Science says your bible is wrong, this happened, end of story.

There are ways to get the same amount of information out without missing anything and without being condescending or rude. You can even do it without telling little sally that her bible is wrong when she asks "but the bible says X". All you have to do is say that is your bible, this is science and this is how science does things. It isn't important for someone to know that science as presented in a text book in school is some absolute truth beyond any reproach. What is important is that science says X and X is the foundations for Y. So when ever Little Susy decides to do something in science she knows X and Y, and that she is able to comprehend it.

There would be no problem if this was the approach. Other countries don't have to tip toe about it because they don't have a guaranteed freedom of religion in their constitution.

Re:Not a surprise.

[sumdumass]

The Constitutions says that Congress shall make no law with respect to the establishment of religion. Science is not a religion. The founders knew that. Religious people know that. Everyone but who isn't either a) dishonest or b) a moron knows that.

Actually, it says

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Do you see the part that says or prohibiting the free exercise thereof? Of course every moron knows that, right? You also have the seperation of church and state which isn't in the constitution but people claim it is. It is actually a letter Jefferson, Or was if Franklin? Well, it could have be any number of those people, but he wrote it to some church claiming that some law being passed couldn't be used against the church because the first amendment puts up wall that separates the church from the state.

Of course that is paraphrasing it. but the sentiment remains and is the basis of removing prayer from schools, it takes the nativity scenes away from public lands, it takes the ten commandments away from public buildings and it is a legal precedent that has a long history in US law. So, if prayer can't be in school because it is a government entity that people are compelled to attend, then the same rules for the or prohibiting the free exercise thereof with respect to religion apply. You cannot have one without the other. And if science wasn't taught in a way that say one if right and the other is wrong, there wouldn't be a problem like we see today.

It is not religion to believe that the sky is blue. Scientific beliefs are no different than believing the sky is blue. We believe it because we have empirical evidence that it is true. Religion is very specifically not like that.

It doesn't matter that it is true. What matters is that you don't say religion is not true in a state funded school setting where the students are compelled by law to attend. You can say it anywhere else in the world that isn't under the separation clause and it won't matter a bit. But in the places that the courts say need separated, then you cannot kick the religion out and then proceed to say it is wrong or not true or anything. We have the freedom or religion and the freedom from religion with the free exorcise thereof clause.

This was an issue that had all but disappeared until relatively recently. It isn't because of a resurgent of religious fanatics, it is because of a change in how science is being taught and the instructors or the science books are specifically telling students that religion is not true, science is the only answer and so on. The approach has been to relax that by putting warning statements in text books or ID statements that state it is only a theory. It isn't that they want science to disappear. It is that they want science to quite interfering with their religion from a government position.

Now, as for science being religion, Yes, for some it has replaced religion and became religion. I'm not saying your one of these people. But you cannot deny it and still maintain scientific credibility. It goes against the grain of science to make a flat out denial of the possibility of something because you never observed it. These religious freeks tend to claim Evolution as the mechanism for life as we know it and a common ancestor is a proven fact. They seem to think that we have empirical evidence showing life mutating from start to finish. They seem to think evolution in this manor stopped because this is the most perfect time for life. They seem to strongly deny other possible theories for the diversity of life like the bubble theory of evolution where the major difference is the common ancestor part.

And yes, even according to the UN's international charter on human rights, atheism is a protected religion as a human right. It has been that way since the 70s or so that I know of.

Re:Not a surprise.

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not calling science a religion, dipshit. He's saying that there's a constitutional problem with mandating that children be specifically taught that their religion is wrong. You're the retard.

Re:Not a surprise.

[Lord Ender]

So if my religion declares that the atomic makeup of water is H4O, and in science class they teach that it is H2O, then they are violating the constitution?

Bullshit. And the basics of chemistry are no less questionable than the basics of biology.

Re:Not a surprise.

[sumdumass]

Aren't you paying attention? It would be against the constitution if the instruction for science in schools said that H2O was the only composition and all other renditions outside of science was incorrect. If they said that H2O was the way science used it and when you stated "well my religion says water is H4O", the answer was when science used the H2O version because it fits with their science where you religion used H4O because it works with it, then thing would be alright.

It isn't a matter of who is right and who is wrong. It is a matter or one not allowing the other, either way. What is needed is simply a more crass approach of instruction. When the schools don't allow the religion to exist, it is a violation, when schools don't allow the science to exist and chooses religion over it, it is a violation. When one, withing the respect of each field exists, not only are people happy, but we don't tread on anyones rights that are protected by the constitution.

Of course outside of school and outside of government branches, anyone is free to say anything. It is only when you make a law for religion or prohibiting the free exorcise of it, you run into problems. And by the separation of church and state, this includes policies of schools and any government offices that normal people have a need to goto. Some examples would be court houses and municipal buildings, Schools, the DMV, and so on.

Re:Not a surprise.

[Chris Burke]

The "young" is yet to be demonstrated. (For that matter, so is whether or not this is really ice, but that seems a reasonable bet.) As for "active" -- if it's a glacier, it flows under the force of gravity, and either advances or (depending on temperature) the leading edge retreats; of course it's active.

Yes, as the article noted the results are not certain, so good call there. A retreating glacier is not an active glacier, and an ancient glacier can only stay active if it has its ice renewed as fast or faster than it evaporates, which is why this would seem to be significant if it pans out.

TFA makes a big deal out of the exposed white areas, claiming that ice sublimates quickly on Mars. Well, some places it does, some places it doesn't.

Ah yes of course, and I'm sure you're well versed in which areas those would be and have correlated that with the location of the possible glacier. No, wait, that would be what the people actively researching Mars would do. Stop pretending you're one of them, or that you can elevate yourself to the status of one of them simply through skepticism.

I'm not inflating their claims, perhaps the BBC is.

Oh so it was the BBC that said that this was going to shake the foundation of planetology? Oh, no, that was you, so you could then claim that straw man as being the hyperbole of those darn scientists that you are seeing through with your insightful cynicism.

Honestly, cynicism for cynicism's sake, especially acting alone in lieu of understanding, is completely pointless and never a substitute for actual knowledge. It wasn't presented as anything other than a possible discovery on Mars of something we haven't found before. Stop pretending that they over-stated the claims, and that you used your layman's knowledge to predict those same claims in advance.

Re:Not a surprise.

[MR.Mic]

That would be the most logical conclusion.

Re:Not a surprise.

[Enigma2175]

it is because of a change in how science is being taught and the instructors or the science books are specifically telling students that religion is not true Citation please?

Re:Not a surprise.

[FireFury03]

These religious freeks tend to claim Evolution as the mechanism for life as we know it and a common ancestor is a proven fact. They seem to think that we have empirical evidence showing life mutating from start to finish.

Whilst we don't have the whole start-to-finish set of evidence, we do have quite a lot of data points. I'm not going to claim that long-term evolution has been proved, but I would say that there is a _lot_ of evidence pointing to the theory being, for the most part, correct.

We have, however, proved short-term evolution to the extent that it is seen in the lab on a regular basis when dealing with bacteria and virii.

They seem to think evolution in this manor stopped because this is the most perfect time for life.

I'm not a geneticist, but logically I would have to conclude that evolution (to the improvement of the gene pool) has probably slowed due to the advancement of medicine. We are now saving the lives of people who have serious diseases and allowing them to breed, so a lot of the natural selection forces have been removed.

I would guess that this is leading to greater genetic diversity by the very fact that these diseases are not being bred out of the gene pool. This is not necessarily a Bad Thing - genetic diversity is often good for the survival of the species as a whole since it allows the species to cope better with rapid environmental changes, but it does mean that our medical facilities may become more and more stretched as diseases, which would otherwise prevent procreation, propagate to further generations.

Re:Not a surprise.

[Eternauta3k]

They seem to think evolution in this manor stopped because this is the most perfect time for life

Evolution hasn't stopped. Maybe in humans it has stopped in the sense that we won't be seeing dramatic changes, like people with fewer toes outnumbering normal people. Nevertheless, some genetic conditions (the very bad ones, like the ones that affect the respiratory chain or other vital stuff) might become scarcer due to natural selection.

They seem to strongly deny other possible theories for the diversity of life like the bubble theory of evolution where the major difference is the common ancestor part.

I know everyone has a right to study what they want, but it annoys me when people focus so much on human evolution, there are a lot more interesting and less controversial aspects of evolution than "0mg we came from monkeys!!1!".

I personally feel that if the material is presented as a theory in the tradition sense with something saying simply that this is how science relates to things and so far it has been as accurate as we can test, things would be fine.

Any good biology book will tell you the arguments for and against evolution (hint, hint). If it really challenges your faith, you might as well read up on it on your own, and you'll quickly realize it's a theory.

Re:Not a surprise.

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't because of a resurgent of religious fanatics, it is because of a change in how science is being taught and the instructors or the science books are specifically telling students that religion is not true, science is the only answer and so on.

Perhaps the teaching of science has changed since I was in public school, but as I recall, the scientific method was stressed as a way of not fooling yourself, and was generally explained as:
  1) Observation
  2) Hypothesis
  3) Prediction
  4) Test

It is a little difficult in the case of evolution, as we haven't had a half-billion years to re-run the experiment, so we're trying to piece it together from available data, which is necessarily incomplete (because not every living thing ever has been fossilized). Nevertheless, the theory does make some prediction about what you won't find, and can be falsified if you do: a billion-year-old man or a fossilized winged angel or anything equally outlandish.

The argument against science (in the US) has been framed largely by two groups of religious nutjobs: Biblical literalists who are offended, as you describe, when the government teaches their children that their religious beliefs are counterfactual; and people whose idea of God has been reduced to a "God of the gaps" who requires somewhere unexplained to dwell, like the creation of the universe. Neither of these are terribly strong positions. The Biblical literalist are viewed by most people as fringe "Flat Earthers", the American Taliban if you will who long for the days before dangerous concepts like "electricity" and "slavery is inhumane" became popular. No rational person cares about them. The others, who require gaps in our knowledge for God to dwell, are bound to be disappointed as the gaps are slowly filled in. And really, it's a rather poor sort of deity who requires you to say, at some point, "a wizard did it."

I guess my response, boiled down, is that if teaching science is undermining your religion, you need a better religion. There are lots of people who don't have this problem.

Re:Not a surprise.

[jlehtira]

What's wrong about telling Little Susy that in my best knowledge, the bible is an amusing compilation of age-old hallucination? She's completely free to make up her own mind, but not letting her know what I think, what the teacher thinks or what the scientific community thinks would be a clear violation of free speech. Freedom of religion does not, cannot and should not mean freedom to close your eyes from reality!

Religion falls into the same category as all other misinformation. Bible says the Earth is flat? Well, I'm sorry, but the bible is clearly wrong on that. Bible says God created everything in one week? Well, science says that's most probably bullshit.

Yes, sure, people could use a better understanding of science. But I think the problem is not in science but rather in religion. It's the religious types who insist that any knowledge can be absolutely certain, while scientists are mostly uncertain about everything. There's no way at all we could have perfect information about anything. So we grow tired of adding "in my opinion" to every single sentence and assume that, and in popular science try to be convincing because we think that's what the audience wants or needs. But it's a fair point - a real popular science piece on the qualities of truth and ways to know it would be needed.

What do you mean "no guaranteed freedom of religion"? A whole lot of other countries have that, mind you. Here, though, it seems that religious people have learned to restrict their religious claims to things that are not ridiculous from the science perspective.

Re:Not a surprise.

[jlehtira]

I'm not a geneticist, but logically I would have to conclude that evolution (to the improvement of the gene pool) has probably slowed due to the advancement of medicine. We are now saving the lives of people who have serious diseases and allowing them to breed, so a lot of the natural selection forces have been removed.

I'm also not a geneticist, but I think this is largely false. Death as it is is only one of the factors driving evolution, choice of partners is another. And that factor has grown vastly in importance now that we have a huge variety of possibilities around us. It's actually an interesting thought - to think of all the properties that today will lead to people having kids. And not only that, but having kids who will have kids who will have kids. So it's not a good strategy in the long run to fail in raising your kids to be pleasant, beautiful and intelligent..

There actually was news rather recently that evolution has accelerated in the last 5000 years. That's because our surroundings have changed so fast during that time.

Re:Not a surprise.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up!

My entire education took place in public school, including some advanced science courses. Never once was religion mentioned, nor was it claimed that any religion was "wrong".

Re:Not a surprise.

[FireFury03]

Death as it is is only one of the factors driving evolution, choice of partners is another.

Absolutely - death is by no means the only factor in driving evolution, but it is an important one in preventing the propagation of serious diseases to the following generations.

As a relatively trivial example, my eyesight is terrible - it was terrible by the time I reached my teens (and I assume this is genetic since most of the rest of my family also have pretty bad eyesight). Back when we were hunter/gatherers I would have likely starved to death since I wouldn't be able to find food, but through the wonders of contact lenses I am free to procreate and pass on this genetic deficiency to the following generation.

There actually was news rather recently that evolution has accelerated in the last 5000 years. That's because our surroundings have changed so fast during that time.

My reading of that report was that our genetic makeup is changing faster, not that we are necessarily becoming "better" (which is what I would consider to be evolution).

An interesting point is that our society tends to measure success by our career achievements, but it is the career people who are foregoing having children. The people who are breeding like rabbits are the people staying at home and living off government handouts. (Yes, I know this comment isn't politically correct, but I'm afraid some times the facts just don't fit with political correctness).

Re:Not a surprise.

[jlehtira]

Absolutely - death is by no means the only factor in driving evolution, but it is an important one in preventing the propagation of serious diseases to the following generations.

Is it? I wouldn't mate with somebody who had a serious disease. Now, this certainly depends on the definition of serious.. And the world you're living in. Poor eyesight is not serious.

How terrible is your eyesight, and how exactly? As humans have always been living in communities, not everyone need to have a "good" eyesight. And shortsighted "bad vision" can actually be beneficial, because shortsighted people see clearly closer. In my own monkey pack, I'd like to have a few shortsighted lice-pickers accompanying the normal-sighted bulk that can feed them!

Sight going bad with old age can also be beneficial in evolution. Old people dying off and making space for the young ones and their "radical" ideas of development.

There actually was news rather recently that evolution has accelerated in the last 5000 years. That's because our surroundings have changed so fast during that time. My reading of that report was that our genetic makeup is changing faster, not that we are necessarily becoming "better" (which is what I would consider to be evolution).

Surely we're better when we can digest milk at old age! =). While I see no reason to believe mutation rate would have gone up (well, until recently), I think it's really evolution and we're really better in the modern world than people 5000 years ago would have been. Of course the difference isn't probably very big..

Re:Not a surprise.

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you goto school in Georgia or Kansas? and was you Evolution exposure in the last 10-15 years or so.

This problem isn't with science in and of itself, it is with how a few places are instructing it. You don't see every school district wanting ID taught in class and you don't see every school district wanting warning labels in the text book. You don't even see the push for it nation wide except where organizations that were effected by it got organized. And then it is to the point of not letting it happen.

You can go ahead and not believe me, it doesn't matter at all. But it really says something when you need evidence for something in order to consider it when what we are talking about is something that has never been proved beyond some people making assertions about the similarities between like fossils. And no, common ancestral evolution or the speciation bit, has never been proved. There is a ton of evidence that people claim support the idea, but not proof.

Re:Not a surprise.

[FireFury03]

Now, this certainly depends on the definition of serious.. And the world you're living in. Poor eyesight is not serious.

But that's kind of my point - it isn't serious, but it does require medical resources. So if we allow diseases to remain within the gene pool, the amount of medical resources we will need will continue to increase.

How terrible is your eyesight, and how exactly?

-5.50 diopters in each eye, with an astigmatism of 0.75 in one and 1.25 in the other. In the grand scheme of things, there are plenty of people with worse eyesight, but it is bad enough that I would have real problems if I didn't have corrective lenses.

Sight going bad with old age can also be beneficial in evolution. Old people dying off and making space for the young ones and their "radical" ideas of development.

That supports my point - the old people are no longer dying off as quickly because we keep them alive (whether that be though corrective lenses for their eyesight or full time care for more serious illnesses).

While I see no reason to believe mutation rate would have gone up (well, until recently)

It isn't just mutation - more people are able to breed, even though they are suffering from a disease and this will increase the amount of genetic diversity.

I think it's really evolution and we're really better in the modern world than people 5000 years ago would have been. Of course the difference isn't probably very big.

I doubt there is much genetic evolution visible to the naked eye over a period of 5000 years. The ways that we are "better" which immediately spring to mind are down to environmental factors, for example, we live longer - this is probably down to medicine and the availability of food due to farming. We have technology - this is down to improved education and building on the knowledge of previous generations. This last point seems to be an exponential function - as we become more technologically advanced, the technology helps us advance faster. For example, over the very recent history, the invention of communication technologies such as the telephone and the internet has massively expanded our ability to educate and cooperate with our peers. There is much less "reinventing the wheel" these days purely because we have better communications and so we know about previous "wheels" - the time we would have spent reinventing it can be put to much better use inventing brand new stuff, possibly based on the existing "wheel".

Re:Not a surprise.

[sumdumass]

Whilst we don't have the whole start-to-finish set of evidence, we do have quite a lot of data points. I'm not going to claim that long-term evolution has been proved, but I would say that there is a _lot_ of evidence pointing to the theory being, for the most part, correct.

I would agree that is an accurate assessment of the situation. You will however, find people or groups of people that will say it is fact and that it has been proven and demonstrated to be true.

We have, however, proved short-term evolution to the extent that it is seen in the lab on a regular basis when dealing with bacteria and virii.

In the sense of masting changes in appearance, characteristics and so on, yes. I don't believe that we have made organisms that are so separated that they can no longer exchange genetic data with their parent or sibling strands. This is one of the basis behind recombinant DNA and is a large part of genetic engineering. It is also the concept behind vaccines. To the degree this shows or doesn't show long term evolution is debatable. I personally don't think it shows too much outside that bacterial, virii and cells can be manipulated.

I'm not a geneticist, but logically I would have to conclude that evolution (to the improvement of the gene pool) has probably slowed due to the advancement of medicine. We are now saving the lives of people who have serious diseases and allowing them to breed, so a lot of the natural selection forces have been removed.

Well, Your probably a lot closer then some seem to be with this. I seriously don't know why it seemed to stop or slowed. But I'm not leaving out the possibility that it never happened in the first place with the Bubble Theory of evolution. And when I say never happened, I'm talking about the common ancestor part. Of course life in itself is changing all the time, growing stronger and weaker and diversifying to some extent.

Now, with the people I was mentioning, the freaks that use Science as a religion, wouldn't allow a simple exchange like this. You ideas scare them and mine threaten them.

Re:Not a surprise.

[sumdumass]

What's wrong about telling Little Susy that in my best knowledge, the bible is an amusing compilation of age-old hallucination? She's completely free to make up her own mind, but not letting her know what I think, what the teacher thinks or what the scientific community thinks would be a clear violation of free speech. Freedom of religion does not, cannot and should not mean freedom to close your eyes from reality!

There is nothing wrong with telling her that as long as you don't do it in a place run by the government and that she is forced to attend by law. This isn't about right verses wrong, it is about freedom of religion no matter how stupid you think it is.

Religion falls into the same category as all other misinformation. Bible says the Earth is flat? Well, I'm sorry, but the bible is clearly wrong on that. Bible says God created everything in one week? Well, science says that's most probably bullshit.

Yes, you can have the one true system of everything. That isn't the point. You cannot push your belief system in place of here from a publicly funded venue that she is compelled to attend under penalty of law. If this was a supermarket and you wanted to shave your head and stand there with flowers spouting this, then it is perfectly ok and it is perfectly ok when little Susy hears it. BTW, maybe your brand of religion has some things wrong too. The bible doesn't say the earth is flat, the church had.

Yes, sure, people could use a better understanding of science. But I think the problem is not in science but rather in religion. It's the religious types who insist that any knowledge can be absolutely certain, while scientists are mostly uncertain about everything. There's no way at all we could have perfect information about anything. So we grow tired of adding "in my opinion" to every single sentence and assume that, and in popular science try to be convincing because we think that's what the audience wants or needs. But it's a fair point - a real popular science piece on the qualities of truth and ways to know it would be needed.

Listen, I don't disagree with you. I only disagree on the venue. It is the same where I don't want them pushing their religions on me. When the government sanctions it one way or another, there is a problem. And it is simply because of this problem, that it appear to be the US's problem. They have been saying god is wrong in schools in the UK, france, and all over the free world for a lot longer and a lot louder because they don't have this problem.

My suggestion is to just be a little more crass in certain venues and not worry about it. By the time they hit college or whatever higher education, they would have already learned the stuff as it pertains to science. They will be just as educated as the person who you told specifically that science is the best and god suxors.

Re:Not a surprise.

[sumdumass]

I hit reply instead of preview. here is one other part.

What do you mean "no guaranteed freedom of religion"? A whole lot of other countries have that, mind you. Here, though, it seems that religious people have learned to restrict their religious claims to things that are not ridiculous from the science perspective.

I mean exactly that. Other countries have it ingrained in law. It can be changed simple by law. In the US, the government is expressly forbidden to make laws establishing or prohibiting the free exorcise of religions. It would take a constitutional amendment to change this in the US where a few nods and the stoke of a pen in other countries and it is changed. I'm also not away of any other free country that has their law structured in a way that not only forbids the government promoting a religion, but forbid them from stopping or interfering with someone wishing to participate in one.

Re:Not a surprise.

[Limburgher]

It doesn't matter that it is true.

Um, WHAT?

Re:Not a surprise.

[arkhan_jg]

You don't think teaching in science classes that 'God/an intelligent being did it' is a violation of the separation of church and state?

God/intelligent design have no place in a science class, in any fashion. Science is by definition the study of the natural. Religion is by definition the worship of the supernatural. ID/creationism have none of the hallmarks of scientific study. They make no predictions, and cannot be disproven which is a requirement of science.

The theory of evolution is as true as the theory of gravity or the carbon cycle. It is testable, it makes predictions, and the current evidence matches the theory. An alternative theory that can explain all the current evidence of evolution, and can make predictions about those areas not yet investigated should probably be taught in science classes. ID is not that theory, and never will be as it is not science. God deserves no place in science classes. He should not even be mentioned, and ID is creationism by God by another name.

There shouldn't be little stars in evolution text books with little notes saying 'some people say that this theory is wrong, and that God did it', any more than there should be that little star by every other single item in a science text book.

The study of natural phenomenons (i.e. evidence, that which is seen) with the theories that explain that evidence using only testable hypothesis. Otherwise, I demand that schools also teach in science classes my theory that things fall down because invisible unicorns jump upon them, imparting momentum...

Re:Not a surprise.

[sumdumass]

Lol.. Your not going to tell me that your this super smart science guy who cannot even get the context of what I said are you? Why am I even entertaining you when you don't even understand something as simple as separating concepts.

All you have to do is go back and read what was posted, it is all there and simple enough that even a doltz can understand.

Re:Not a surprise.

[sumdumass]

You don't think teaching in science classes that 'God/an intelligent being did it' is a violation of the separation of church and state?

Sure it is, But I'm not suggesting you do it. Why do you ask? I'm not advocating intelligent design or anything. Not refuting something doesn't mean advocating. The trick is simple to say nothing about it. And if you have to, limit it to the context at had, IE science, when in science class, Theology when in social studies and so on.

God/intelligent design have no place in a science class, in any fashion. Science is by definition the study of the natural. Religion is by definition the worship of the supernatural. ID/creationism have none of the hallmarks of scientific study. They make no predictions, and cannot be disproven which is a requirement of science.

I'm not and never advocated ID and God. Your preaching to the quire here.

The theory of evolution is as true as the theory of gravity or the carbon cycle. It is testable, it makes predictions, and the current evidence matches the theory. An alternative theory that can explain all the current evidence of evolution, and can make predictions about those areas not yet investigated should probably be taught in science classes. ID is not that theory, and never will be as it is not science. God deserves no place in science classes. He should not even be mentioned, and ID is creationism by God by another name.

Wrong, Parts of it are. Not everything has been observed or tested. But that is besides the point. I still don't understand why you keep bringing up God and ID. Do you have issues with him?

here shouldn't be little stars in evolution text books with little notes saying 'some people say that this theory is wrong, and that God did it', any more than there should be that little star by every other single item in a science text book.

Your right, Once again your talking about something I agree with. However, there shouldn't be any science that makes assertions to God not existing or a religion being wrong and the context of the science should be explained as it relates to science. So again, no problems here either. If we can keep god completely out of it, we would be fine.

he study of natural phenomenons (i.e. evidence, that which is seen) with the theories that explain that evidence using only testable hypothesis. Otherwise, I demand that schools also teach in science classes my theory that things fall down because invisible unicorns jump upon them, imparting momentum...

I think I will demand that you actual comprehend what you read. It seems as if you are seriously missing something here. Just because X is a multiple of Y doesn't mean X is the only multiple. So get a grip and setting down.

Re:Not a surprise.

[Anonymous Coward]

If the US government can't make laws to prohibit the free exercise of religion, then why has the USA been going so hard after people who obviously were crashing passenger jets into tall buildings as a form religious expression?

I am beginning to think that even if they took out just a few hundred religious nutters, including themselves, it was absolutely worthwhile.

There are at least two places on Earth, that I, although I would mourn the loss of historically interesting objects, would rather see nuked to glass: one is the Vatican, the other is Mecca.

Belief in ID and creationism should be considered a criminal offense.

Re:Not a surprise.

[sumdumass]

Evolution hasn't stopped. Maybe in humans it has stopped in the sense that we won't be seeing dramatic changes, like people with fewer toes outnumbering normal people. Nevertheless, some genetic conditions (the very bad ones, like the ones that affect the respiratory chain or other vital stuff) might become scarcer due to natural selection.

Evolution tends to be an envelope term that encompasses evolutionary theories. The common ancestor part is connected but separate from the the strong survive and traits from parents parts. But all together, it is the evolution we generically refer to when talking about it as a whole. The parts that supposedly stopped it new and separate creatures from common ancestors. While people and animals are born different, even mutated, they still go on to be the same animals that always were. We haven't seen a new species created, we have though, seen what we think is the beginning of a new species but it isn't there yet.

I know everyone has a right to study what they want, but it annoys me when people focus so much on human evolution, there are a lot more interesting and less controversial aspects of evolution than "0mg we came from monkeys!!1!".

Well, you see, this goes back to the envelope thing. It isn't necessarily that we came from monkeys (I know it is ape and there is a difference). It is the problem that the coming from monkeys is the part that contradicts biblical representations. What has amplified this is that we kicked god out of school and in some areas are going as far as saying god doesn't exist, your the illegitimate offspring of a monkey and anything that says otherwise is nothing but a fairy tale. The entire points that make it popular and on the tips of everyone's minds is this controversy. You simply cannot have a government agency denying the free practice of religion just as you cannot have them pushing religion on you. The constitution says both, not just what makes some people happy. If it is valid in one instance, it is valid in all instances.

But this isn't really a fault of science, it or more a fault of the instruction or type of instruction of science in certain areas. It can easily be adapted to be instructed in the same ways that don't create problems in other areas of the country. It isn't that those area are godless, it seems to be that the problem areas are having God specifically rebuked.

Any good biology book will tell you the arguments for and against evolution (hint, hint). If it really challenges your faith, you might as well read up on it on your own, and you'll quickly realize it's a theory.

This is probably the biggest problem. We don't have good biology books in all our schools. We don't have consistent instruction from them and we have teachers injecting personal interpretations and opinions on top of it that turn it into a representation of fact not theory. You will even see around here where people are convinced it is a fact, all of the theory, every single thing, fact, Science has proved it.

They believe there is no room for error and it appears as if they have taken a religions like faith in what they were told. I would doubt that there would be an issue that gets national attention if we had "good" biology books and people instructing science in a way that pertains to science and not in a way that claims any god is part of some fairy tale. They don't even have to mention GOD, That is what I am saying. Make no reference or representation to any religion and if asked about the differences in religious views, simply stating this is the way science uses it and science finds it works best with their process is enough to get around the issue and let things go. If the student is bright enough to open a door before walking into a room, they will judge the information being presented on their own and come to their own conclusions. If they reject god on their own fine, but if they keep god and retain the Idea of evolution within the context of science, they have still learned the material.

Re:Not a surprise.

[CaptPungent]

Uhmmmm, how exactly is teaching evolution in school preventing you from believing whatever you want to believe? It doesn't. It lays out scientific facts. It doesn't dictate what your religion has to be. Whatever conclusions your children draw from that is not the fault of teaching facts. Yes, evolution exposes a lot of flaws in the story told in Genesis, but that isn't the fault of the schools. That's the fault of the religion for blindly believing ridiculous 3000 year old myth as fact.

Short answer, teaching evolution is not teaching religion. Teaching ID is. You have no Constitutional argument here, as it isn't preventing you from practicing any religion you want to. That is the only protection you have, to not have religion taught in school (evolution is not religion), and to not be prohibited from believing whatever you want (teaching evolution doesn't prevent you from believing anything if you choose to not believe it).

Re:Not a surprise.

[CaptPungent]

This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Re:Not a surprise.

[Eternauta3k]

To sum up, good teachers are essential. In my school (catholic) we were taught evolution without any weird modifications or god-bashing.

Re:Not a surprise.

[sumdumass]

Yes, that would sum it up very nicely. But in the absence of that, you see the religious attempting to insert their stuff and stop mediocre or poor teacher from teaching. Whether it is right or wrong, it all boils down to your brilliant summery. When that is present, you don't see the other stuff and the problem disappears on the large part. At least it disappears on the level that we have seen in Georgia, Kansas, and Pennsylvanian.

Re:Not a surprise.

[sumdumass]

Aren't you paying attention? I'm not sure If I can spell it out any clearer. Of course that is probably why the problem exists in the first place, people like you.

Uhmmmm, how exactly is teaching evolution in school preventing you from believing whatever you want to believe? It doesn't. It lays out scientific facts. It doesn't dictate what your religion has to be.

Teaching evolution isn't the problem is evolution was the only thing being taught. Can you understand anything outside your personal experience? You have teachers and poorly presented instructions in some areas that are telling kids that Science and evolution is the one absolute truth, everything else is a lie. While that might be true in your opinion, it does interfere with their rights to freely practice their religion. It is no different then a moment of silence in school being considered prayer and banned.

Whatever conclusions your children draw from that is not the fault of teaching facts. Yes, evolution exposes a lot of flaws in the story told in Genesis, but that isn't the fault of the schools. That's the fault of the religion for blindly believing ridiculous 3000 year old myth as fact.

Schools cannot teach it in respect to what genisis says. The schools are a government function and the students are compelled by law to attend. The schools have to teach evolution as science and not discuss anything pertaining to any religion in the process. That is where the problem comes in, people are using poorly worded texts or teachers are flat our saying that the bible is wrong. You cannot do that from a government podium with the backing of the government. The only answer to genesis that can exist without flirting with constitutional problems is that evolution is science and that's how science works. You can claim how true it is and how testable it is but you have to do it in the context of science, not religion.

Is it too much to ask that schools just don't say anything about religion? I mean don't push it on me and don't take it from them. That is what this country was more or less founded with.

Short answer, teaching evolution is not teaching religion. Teaching ID is. You have no Constitutional argument here, as it isn't preventing you from practicing any religion you want to. That is the only protection you have, to not have religion taught in school (evolution is not religion), and to not be prohibited from believing whatever you want (teaching evolution doesn't prevent you from believing anything if you choose to not believe it).

ID is an answer to science teaching religion. You are confused in it's process. ID is a reaction to all the times the schools said god doesn't exist because science says so and here is proof. If the schools would just says this is science and this is how we look at it in science, ID would have never gained any traction. If you keep religion completely out of science in the schools, there isn't a problem at all. You seem to be wanting to miss this point. You want to skip over it to say But science is true and religion is not. That is the exact problem that brought ID and warning stickers into the realm in the first place.

And your wrong when you say there is no constitutional protections. There is, You cannot have the government going around saying this religion is ok or that religion is crap. That is the effect you have when you say some religion is wrong from a public school environment. The idea behind the separation of church and state is to not have the government favor one religion over another. You can say what you want but when the school says that one religion is wrong, you are in effect favoring one over another. IE all the religions you didn't say is wrong. The government in that respect is attempting to stop the free exorcise thereof. A government entity has to be neutral on all their interactions or positions with regard to religion. They cannot favor one or put the ot

Re:Not a surprise.

[CaptPungent]

I want to see proof of school science text stating flat out "Genesis is wrong", in those words. When I learned evolution in school, the topic of how it pertained to religion wasn't ever discussed. The straight facts of the origin of the solar system based upon our observations, and the early formation of the earth and on up to how life evolved on the planet. Genesis was never discussed in class or in books.

In short, I don't believe a single bit of what you're saying.

Re:Not a surprise.

[sumdumass]

Ah.. man. Have you even listened to the arguments at all? I know you have been ignoring what I said and picking and choosing what you want. Do you see ID or warning sticker being a nation wide problem? Do you see it happening state wide?

The book doesn't say it, the instruction, you know, the thing the teachers do are saying it. That is why I have said that there is nothing wrong with evolution in and of itself, you have to keep the "instruction" away from god. How fucking dense are you? I mad this clear in the post you are replying to as well as the one that you replied to before that. And because it didn't happen at your school, whoopee, if it is happening anywhere, it is wrong. That is why your seeing the ID and stickers and whatever popping up in some places but not all of them. That isn't a nationwide movement. It has all been specific school boards or counties and it is because they have very poor teachers who inject that shit. MY god man, look around and pay attention to more then just what you want. there is a good change that what you want to pay attention to is directly being effected by th shit your skipping over.

Re:Not a surprise.

[CaptPungent]

I've been listening to a non-argument. You still have yet to make an point that ID, which is religion, should be taught in school. You make no logical argument at all in any of these threads, just some vague BS about some "teachers" somewhere that might have said things like "the Bible is BS". Where is your proof of any of this at all?

Re:Not a surprise.

[sumdumass]

Lol.. I never made that point. That isn't my point at all. I'm saying that the reason it is even being brought up is because some schools have went the way of saying God is bad and the bible is wrong. If they weren't doing that, ID wouldn't be an issue.

See, your missing the point by only paying attention to the shit you want to. I'm talking about the root of the problem, not the ID portion of it. ID shouldn't be taught in schools. That is nowhere near anything I am saying. It doesn't belong there. Neither does teachers using science to discredit religion. That is the only reason ID is being brought up. Get rid of that and you can live in peace with all sides. Most everyone else will too. There might be a few minor wackos out there hanging on to ID but they would be wackos and the rest of the world would know it. It is only when Schools or people teaching in the schools attack religion that they gain momentum.

Do you understand how the actions of one group could cause the actions of another? Especially if they are purposely angering them? And do you understand that the other group can attempt to do something that mitigated the first group? That is what happened because some schools had incompetent teachers that told the class the bible was wrong. They cam up with ID only to stop that. ID is totally separate from any point I am making though. I am addressing the why portion. as in why is ID and issue. IT isn't because it is wrong, it is because people are attempting to use it to correct what is already a wrong. The fact that ID isn't science is only secondary in this argument.

I sense a connection here...

[Odin The Ravager]

Dr Gerhard Neukum
Duke Nukem
Really, ask yourself, what are the chances?

Re:I sense a connection here...

[geekoid]

The same odds the a man actually named "McCool" would die in a spaceship accident.

If I tried to use that name in a game, I would have been laughed at.

So, the European Space Agency is dreaming...

[niceone]

... of a white Christmas?

Re:So, the European Space Agency is dreaming...

[Anonymous Coward]

... of a white Mistress?

There, fixed that for ya!

Mod parent down as SPAM

[Kasis]

bloody immature way to measure your e-penis if you ask me.

Glacier

[Velcroman98]

With Mar's distance from the Sun I wonder if any of it it dry ice, or any other elements that would normally be a gas on Earth.

If it melts will it be blamed on Bush?

Re:Glacier

[rrohbeck]

>With Mar's distance

This is taking the apostrophe-s-itis a little too far.

Why hot ga's and melt's too?

Re:Glacier

[Anonymous Coward]

You should have seen the Wiki page I was reading yesterday. Can't remember the page (a TV series about a vampire detective, that wasn't picked up), but here are some highlights:

"Mick meet's a photographer..."
"After he discover's it's really her..."
"When Beth get's jealous..."
"She find's out..."
"...his daughter, Sarah, 50 year's ago."

Damned painful.

3d realms

[Anonymous Coward]

Still no on when Duke Neukum Forever is coming out, eh?

Missing

[Etrias]

Oh good! Glaciers on Mars. Nice for them to turn up because we're starting to miss a few down here.

Re:Missing

[SilentBob0727]

Nice for them to turn up because we're starting to miss a few down here. Damned neighbors always borrowing your glaciers and not returning them...

Re:Missing

[rhennigan]

So Mars is stealing our glaciers... Please tell me that means we can invade Mars.

A place to find life

[readin]

This is cool. If any Martians ever stuck their tongue on it they should still be there!

Re:A place to find life

[Elusive_Cure]

This is cool. If any Martians ever stuck their tongue on it they should still be there! By definition a glacier is cool...

Re:A place to find life

[snickkers]

This is cool. I get it.

Mars Ice "Premium" Bottled Water?

[Zymergy]

Executive: "How can we get ahold of some of that Mars glacial ice? We could make a killing selling it to the bottled water crowd!"

R&D: "We could make it a dilute 'blend' with filtered municipal tap water and disclose (in small print) that it is 'filtered for your purity'."

Marketing: "The bottle cost should be just under $0.05 each (with printing) and we could put on its side in BOLD TYPE: 'Contains REAL Mars Water' and actual unit cost could be $1000 each. Then we could spread a rumor that it has aphrodisiac properties, it worked for the rhinoceros horn market!"...

NASA Administration Plebe to NASA Director: "Sir, I think I have found a new way to raise REAL corporate money for our manned Mars missions..."

Re:Mars Ice "Premium" Bottled Water?

[quantaman]

Executive: "How can we get ahold of some of that Mars glacial ice? We could make a killing selling it to the bottled water crowd!"

R&D: "We could make it a dilute 'blend' with filtered municipal tap water and disclose (in small print) that it is 'filtered for your purity'." In small print?! You clearly know nothing of consumers, it's not "filtered" or "diluted", it's homoeopathy!!

Re:Mars Ice "Premium" Bottled Water?

[TubeSteak]

Three words:
Dehydrated Martian Ice

Tagline:
Just add water, then freeze

Get it while it's cold!

[overshoot]

After all, no telling what global warming will do to this thing.

we must go to mars

[circletimessquare]

so we can melt it

i am not happy with just denuding mt kilimanjaro of glaciers and melting greenland

we must do better than this

global warming? this is the mark of an inferior life form

solar system warming or darest i dream galactic warming, that should be the goal of mankind!

Re:we must go to mars

[rucs_hack]

Actually, perverse though it sounds, global warming is exactly what we have to do on Mars if its ever to be habitable without assisted environments (posh way of saying biodome..) in a thousand yars or so. All that subsurface ice needs to be melted to bring the oceans back and build a decent atmosphere, one better at deflecting solar radiation.

Without it we'd have to wait tens of thousands of years, or more, while specially engineered plant life (very basic plant life) and such worked its slow magic on the atmosphere. With a bit of global warming technology (TM) we can shorten the time considerably. If oceans were brought back the process would be much faster.

The question is how can it be acheived in a way that can be managed, so it doesn't spin out of control. Personally, since I won't be alive in either case, a thing I have in common with everyone reading this, I'd go for the slower option, or even go for the option of spending a few hundred years seeing if there were any remnant native organisms that could be helped back into activity and do the job for us.

That there are active glaciers is fascinating though. What a shame that almost all of the current environment of mars would need to be destroyed or irreversibly altered in order to host our species. It doesn't bode well for our entry into the interstellar club. How ironic if the destructive aliens we worry about so much in fiction turn out to be us.

Re:we must go to mars

[MightyMartian]

Actually, perverse though it sounds, global warming is exactly what we have to do on Mars if its ever to be habitable without assisted environments (posh way of saying biodome..) in a thousand yars or so. All that subsurface ice needs to be melted to bring the oceans back and build a decent atmosphere, one better at deflecting solar radiation.

It's going to take more than that. Even if you managed, somehow, to get a dense atmosphere on Mars (which is a must if you don't want the water to simply boil on the surface), you're going to have to figure out how to keep that atmosphere from simply leaking into space.

In short, Mars is not a massive enough planet to hold a dense atmosphere over the long term.

Re:we must go to mars

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct, however "the long term" is a geologically long period, hence losses could be compensated for by crashing comets into the surface (which would probably be necessary to get things going initially too.)

Re:we must go to mars

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, perverse though it sounds, global warming is exactly what we have to do on Mars

So I'm seeing some new career opportunities for Bush, since all of the global warming is his fault apparently.

Re:we must go to mars

[KnowledgeKeeper]

Actually, you can't do that. The thing is that kinetic energy of molecules at temperatures we like is too big and they leave the planet's gravitational well relatively easily because Mars hasn't got enough mass to support the atmosphere we need.

IMO, we're too occupied by Mars and overseeing the Earth's twin planet - Venus. Venus is a place of runaway global warming effect. If we learn how to deal with it there we've got two flies with one shot - we can combat the global warming on Earth and we've got another planet to live on.

It's nice to test things on Mars but we should be working on colonizing the Venus before trying to colonize other worlds like, let's say, Europe and it's underground ocean.

More Martian Glacier Info

[L3WKW4RM]

More info and photos on the Martian rock-ice glaciers of Deuteronilus Mensae.

Now that we've got glaciers and lava tubes, I'm packing up my crampons and caving gear for a Martian vacation!

Estimate?

[ScrewMaster]

Estimates place the glacier at 10,000 -- 100,000 years old.

They really meant "wild-assed guess", but it sounds more scientific to call it an estimate.

Re:Estimate?

[tompaulco]

Estimates place the glacier at 10,000 -- 100,000 years old.
What's an order of magnitude among friends?

I have a plan.

[geekoid]

Create a giant yellow 'umbrella' between the sun and mars.
It would be concave on the mars side and larger then mars. So it would focus more light and heat onto mars. Thus warming it.
It could also deflect much of the suns bombardment of radiation onto the planet.

Re:I have a plan.

[Tsuki_no_Hikari]

Mars lacks a molten core. Mars therefore lacks a magnetosphere to filter solar radiation to the poles like earth does. Aside from the problem of the atmosphere thinning back out if we did manage to thicken it, humans could never live unassisted due to the higher radiation.

Re:I have a plan.

[ianare]

That would be put to better use on Venus.

Don't do the same mistake again

[felipekk]

I think this is a hint that we should not go there. We already screwed with our glaciers...

Don't Forget the Vitamin C

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously.

Human bodies don't make it ... one of two mammals. The Guinea Pig is the other. Seriously.

Without the vitamin C, you humans are totally screwed. Pretty lame, really.

Meanwhile, in other news ...

[PPH]

Martian scientists believe that their neighboring planet, known as 'Irth' may have had glaciers and polar ice caps in its recent past. These ara believed to have disappeared during the recent geological era known as SUV.

Re:Meanwhile, in other news ...

[ScrewMaster]

Martian scientists believe that their neighboring planet, known as 'Irth' may have had glaciers and polar ice caps in its recent past. These ara believed to have disappeared during the recent geological era known as SUV.

Some Martian scientists disagree. They believe the proper interpretation of the inhabitants own description of their final days to be the symbols "GW". There are two camps, one of which considers this "GW" to represent the phrase "Global Warming", which would tend to agree with the physical evidence. The other group has some indication that these symbols refer to a mythical figure known colloquially as "GW Bush".

Whether this "GW Bush" bears any relationship to "Global Warming" is not yet clear.

Wait, what happened to the martian cities?

[theyip1218]

"On the glacial ridges we can see white tips, which can only be freshly exposed ice." So martian cities aren't an option?

The bigger questions still remain.

[ArtfulDodger75]

Now that we know there's lots of ice, are we any closer to finding out if Mars has a Santa?

white tips, which can only be freshly exposed ice

[tompaulco]

Or something else.

But they are probably right, it was probably ice from the beverage the giant face dropped when he heard the dismaying news that NASA "proved" he was just a natural rock formation.

Not News.

[notnAP]

Possible Active Interplanetary Missile Complex Found On Mars

Now that's news.

inconsistency

[Fuji Kitakyusho]

FTA: "This is unique, and there are probably more," said Dr Neukum." Methinks Dr. Neukum needs to brush up on the definition of "unique".

Skiing.

[Ihlosi]

Don't forget skiing. Forget Aspen, Mars is the new place to be.

White tips

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it most likely to be frozen CO2?

Nasa already found water on mars

[kvap]

A couple of years ago:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0504/WaterOnMars2_gcc_big.jpg

Hypotheses, facts, and theories

[jbengt]

"I understand that people think it is absurd to downplay something like evolution . . . because they incorrectly think it is a fact that has been proven."

In the context of science
A hypothesis is a proposed fact that is, hopefully, to be proven or disproven.
A theory is an overall view and understanding of the subject that informs the facts and hypothesis.
Disproving a fact predicted by a theory (e.g. a hypothesis) will cause the theory to be changed or abandoned.
Evolution is a fact, as much as the fact that the earth revolves around the sun is a fact. Study of the fossil records, of the ecology, of living species, of artificial evolution caused by farming and husbandry over the last few thousand years, and of direct observations of fast breeding creatures like fruit flies and disease-producing microbes all make it abundantly clear that evolution happens.
"The" theory of evolution is actually a set of overlapping and competing theories of how evolution happens and has happened in nature, Darwin's theories of natural selection being the most notable. (To continue the analagy, "the" theory of gravity explains the earth revolving around the sun, but Einstein's relativity gives a better understanding than Newton's theory.)

Calling evolution "just a theory" is a red herring that relies on confusions of theories, facts, and hypotheses.

Re:Hypotheses, facts, and theories

[sumdumass]

So is evolution, the common ancestral parts, a fact? Have we seen empirical evidence supporting this Fact. Is there still room for something to change in the theory behind the FACT?

Evolution is a fact, as much as the fact that the earth revolves around the sun is a fact. Study of the fossil records, of the ecology, of living species, of artificial evolution caused by farming and husbandry over the last few thousand years, and of direct observations of fast breeding creatures like fruit flies and disease-producing microbes all make it abundantly clear that evolution happens.

No, it isn't. We have empirical evidence supporting the majority if not all of what you said. But we don't have any supporting the common ancestor thing and we don't have any showing the big bang as fact. The problem is that Evolution is an all encompasing term. It was designed that way so we could take the "look at these different finches" and say that man and gorillas have the same uncle. Religions, at least the ones I am familiar with, don't have a problem with the majority of evolution, just the parts that say god didn't exist and that god didn't make things.

The real dishonestly here is that the observed facts don't prove that. They prove parts of it enough to let us believe that everything evolved form common ancestors. That in and of itself isn't a fact. Let me ask you, when you know that religions only have problems with small portions of evolution, do you think your being intellectually honest in saying that things outside where their problem lays, is true therefor all of it is true? I mean they already acknowledge that the parts we know to be true could be true, they aren't denying that. But insisting that what they dispute is a proven fact because of what they already agree with? I think there is some magic working there and it isn't from the religious crowed.

Calling evolution "just a theory" is a red herring that relies on confusions of theories, facts, and hypotheses.Well, first of all, you know the controversy isn't over evolution in it's entirety. I Mean you admitted that it was a set of overlapping theories and conclusions. So why are you attempting to treat it as one evoloping theory when the problem revolve around bits and pieces of the underlying theories. If anyone is attempting to blur the issue, you are too. It isn't that complicated in the end though.

Re:Hypotheses, facts, and theories

[jbengt]

"So is evolution, the common ancestral parts, a fact? . . . "
Yes. There is plenty of evidence to conclude that there are common ancestors among different species. If, however, you mean to say that all life comes from a single common ancestor, then, no, there is not enough evidence to prove that. But it's not necessary to believe in that in order to believe in evolution.

" . . . we don't have any showing the big bang as fact. "
I agree, the big bang is not a fact, which is why I left that out of my original response.

"Religions, at least the ones I am familiar with, don't have a problem with the majority of evolution, just the parts that say god didn't exist and that god didn't make things."
Unfortunately, many people do have a religious problem with the majority of evolution. Second, nothing in evolution requires you to disbelieve in God, nor does it require you to disbelieve that God made things; it does require you to not worship the creation stories of the Bible as literal scientific facts, which is what upsets so many.
As a God-believing religious person, myself, I don't have a problem with evolution, and I would not agree with anyone who says that evolution says that 'god didn't exist and that god didn't make things'.

"If anyone is attempting to blur the issue, you are too. It isn't that complicated in the end though."
My point was just that the phrase "just a theory" underestimates what a theory is and somewhat conflates it with the concept of a hypothesis; a theory is not an unproven fact.

Re:Hypotheses, facts, and theories

[sumdumass]

Yes. There is plenty of evidence to conclude that there are common ancestors among different species. If, however, you mean to say that all life comes from a single common ancestor, then, no, there is not enough evidence to prove that. But it's not necessary to believe in that in order to believe in evolution.

Well, Having "evidence" and having empirical evidence are two different things and my point stands, it isn't fact. As for A single ancestor, wel yea you have to believe that because that is what is being taught that people are getting their panties in a bunch over. You know, the world tree and all.

Unfortunately, many people do have a religious problem with the majority of evolution. Second, nothing in evolution requires you to disbelieve in God, nor does it require you to disbelieve that God made things; it does require you to not worship the creation stories of the Bible as literal scientific facts, which is what upsets so many.

lol..But you see. It doesn't have to require you to do anything concerning God when being instructed at school. And those instructions at school shouldn't be in a position to have science contradicting anything with regard to the religion outside the context with science while being instructed in school.

My point was just that the phrase "just a theory" underestimates what a theory is and somewhat conflates it with the concept of a hypothesis; a theory is not an unproven fact.

Just a theory in this context really goes to the issues that are just theories. We already know and understand that the term evolution encompasses several independent evolutional theories that are called evolution too. When you hear about the contradictions and the problems with religion, you know that they are isolated to the points that contradict creationism and the biblical tales. You know that when we say evolution in this context, we aren't talking about the points of the other parts. When we say just a theory, it is an accurate statement because it is dealing with stuff that are only theories.

I mean you do know what the religious claims actually are don't you? It wouldn't be very scientific to deny creation if you had no idea what it actually encompasses and are rejecting it out of the faith that science has got it right. That by definition would be a religious act. So I would at least hope you took enough time to discern the arguments before flat out rejecting them based on what you know to be true, because someone told you it was.

Go to Mars

[Anonymous Coward]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Mars is our "summer" home. The sun goes through a cycle, and we're in game where we have to develop the technology fast enough to get to Mars before the sun goes through another warming trend. Then we sit out the warming trend on Mars, which later cools and we have to get back to Earth.

The dinosaurs didn't make it (ok, so there may have bee a comet involved too). Will we?

Here is a terrestrial analogue

[mbone]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Malaspina_Glacier_from_space.jpg

The solution to global warming

[GWBasic]

Now we can actually use Futurama's solution to global warming! All we need to do is bring the glacier back here and stick it in the ocean!