• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Life on Mars

No need to be a dick buddy.



I'm not the moron who started this bs. I'd suggest in the future to keep your ****ing mouth shut and maybe, just maybe chit wouldn't get started.
 
What I'm getting here is that NASA said "we may have found evidence of life on Mars!" when they really meant "Hey we need to seem useful so they'll keep funding us!"

Nasa's actual conferrence on the issue did not state "We may have found evidence of life on Mars!".

In fact, they did not even come close to saying that. Teh WHOLE time, all they kept saying si that it could be eitehr Geological in nature, or perhaps biological in nature, but the evidence is not nearly enough to rule out or promote either concept as of yet.

They basically only said that Mars is more active than what was originally thought, based on the evidence.

They downplayed the idea that this is evidence of life on Mars, and were quite scientific in their descriptions by touting that there is no way to draw any conclusions based on insufficient evidence.

They also stated that other compounds that would be expected if this were a biological component were not found during the Northern Summer, but were seen during the Equinox phase of Martian seasons.

They also correctly stated that more research is needed to determine what the cause of the plumes could be.


Sensationalist journalism has ran with the "Evidence of Life on Mars Found!" story because they are scientifically ignorant retards more interested in selling advertising than they are on accuracy. There is, to date, no evidence of life on Mars and this is what Nasa has said.

The problem with journailsts is that they report science, even though they almost NEVER understand science. The media is a joke, especially when it comes to reporting science. I think every media outlet should have a scientific expert who is the sole person responsible for reporting scientific discoveries, because the average reporter is so profoundly ignorant of science that they will definitely **** everything up and cause more people to denounce scientific discoveries as "hogwash", not because the science is wrong, but because reporters are universally retarded.

They don't understand stats, they don;t understand the scientific method, and they don;t give a **** about accuracy. Their job is to sell advertising, and they do this by sensationalizing every single nugget of information they receive, yet fail to understant, in order to increase circulation.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Members should refrain from insults.

Thank you.
 
Either way they get an "F". In my job if I get it 99% right 1/2 my clients will never hire me again.

Back when I did construction, if I only got 99% of the staircases I built right, and one percent collapsed, I'd probably get prosecuted for manslaughter. ;)
 
Back when I did construction, if I only got 99% of the staircases I built right, and one percent collapsed, I'd probably get prosecuted for manslaughter. ;)
Same here, as a structural engineer.

  • If I screw up, people die, my career's in shambles and I'm possibly in jail.
  • If a doctor screws up, a patient dies and "his injuries were too far along for us to save him".
  • If a journalist screws up, they might put a small type correction on page 11.
 
I'm not the moron who started this bs. I'd suggest in the future to keep your ****ing mouth shut and maybe, just maybe chit wouldn't get started.

It was a joke. Of course people are going to care about Michael Meyers' opinion as he's the head of the NASA Mars program and that is the topic of this thread. Being an E-Thug doesn't help your cause Cherokee. If I in some way offended you by making a joke about someone who has nothing to do with you, then I apologize.

Besides I don't know how to start chit, nor do I know how to open my mouth and make words appear on the forums.
 
I love this. It has already been proven mathematically life on other rocks in our universe exists. This great discovery will hopefully shut the non-believers up. Don't worry all you religious nuts, your Gods will survive, after all God is faith not scientific fact. "Onward science solidiers marching off to facts."

Not true. It was be shown to be highly probably but not actually proven.
 
It was a joke. Of course people are going to care about Michael Meyers' opinion as he's the head of the NASA Mars program and that is the topic of this thread. Being an E-Thug doesn't help your cause Cherokee. If I in some way offended you by making a joke about someone who has nothing to do with you, then I apologize.

Besides I don't know how to start chit, nor do I know how to open my mouth and make words appear on the forums.

Whatever slick.


btw its called speech recognition software as in Dragon Naturally Speaking.
 
Whatever slick.


btw its called speech recognition software as in Dragon Naturally Speaking.


However that is impractical. Those things barely work, as there is no uniform speech. Besides I don't think it will understand my "y'all"s
 
They aren't even 1/2 right on most scientific issues. I'd say closer to 1/10th right, as per usual with science.

I'd say this was the case. Journalists are notorious for either being scientifically ignorant or taking extreme measures with the facts. The Dino Blood case is one of the worst I can remember where "journalists" said that scientists found dinosaurs blood and ran with it as if it was fresh rather then extremely dessicated, decayed veins, some partially fossilized that had to be chemically hydrated dozens of times to even get them to identifiable.

The news cast it as fresh Dino blood rather then what is actually was.
 
However that is impractical. Those things barely work, as there is no uniform speech. Besides I don't think it will understand my "y'all"s

Impractical? I don't think so. I've used DNS for over a year now and it works great. (about 120 words per minute) But you get what you pay for.

Dragon Naturally Speaking 10 Pro goes for $200
 
Well in your case I suggest you stay back, until we can grow some crops there....:2razz:

I just hope that if we find microbes, it won't deter us from moving our species out amongst the planets/moons. Its kind of dumb to keep all our eggs in one basket, and I can totally see a group like PETM being formed(People for the ethical treatment of microbes).

Microbes...(emphasis on micro),our carbon FOOTPRINT (size 11 here) would be so massive,PETM would most certainly have to be involved. SAVE THE GLACIERS !
 
NASA scientists believe they have found overwhelming evidence that microbes do exist on Mars, underneath the surface.

If, indeed, life does exist on Mars, then life must exist elsewhere in the Universe. As a matter of fact, life could very well be the norm for many solar systems. And, if life is confirmed on Mars, it would dash the theory that we are somehow unique. What I mean is that it would be foolish to think that, with all that space in existence, our infinitesimally small corner of that space is the only place where life exists.

NASA is going to announce their discovery at a news conference, which will be at 7PM tonight, and will be carried live on NASA TV.

Article is here.

NOTE: Want to find carbon-based life on other planets in other systems? Just look for the fart gas. :)

Science is in shambles everywhere you look. Junk science rules the day. At some point you`d think they would hold back just a little on such things as cow farts.The medical sciences kill more than 300 thousand people each year in this country alone...(google CDC/wrongful deaths). The meteor found years ago was,PROOF...bla bla bla! I have to much science education to even want to watch these goofballs on the tube. You watch and report back to me in the year 2525 ,when they have proof. THANKS
 
Science is in shambles everywhere you look. Junk science rules the day. At some point you`d think they would hold back just a little on such things as cow farts.The medical sciences kill more than 300 thousand people each year in this country alone...(google CDC/wrongful deaths). The meteor found years ago was,PROOF...bla bla bla! I have to much science education to even want to watch these goofballs on the tube. You watch and report back to me in the year 2525 ,when they have proof. THANKS

Yeah to hell with science, let's all take the bible as proof of fact right? lol.
 
Other planets can sustain life! Good ****. Now we can start looking for a new planet to occupy and destroy after this one. Or we could behave ourselves like the space hippies in Black Sabbath's "into the void."
 
This is exciting news!!! I have always wanted to know--yet not wanted to know at the same time, if there was indeed life close to us. It has always seemed very realistic that there would be life on planets and in solar systems other than ours. But it's still creeeepppppyyy to know for sure!
 
NOT science there christian...,JUNK SCIENCE. I have absolutely no use for it.

The science is not junk, the reporting of the science by the media is. Science almost never makes the claims that the media porrays that it does.

This example is a prime example. People see a **** report about the science made by ass-clowns who don't understand science and they automatically call the science junk, when in fact, the science never made such claims at all. Only dumbass reporters trying to sell advertising for their corporate puppet-masters make these claims.

Science gets a bad name in no small part because OTHER dumbass members of the media use the reporting of the science to discredit the science itself because they simply accept the reports as accurate to the claims made by science, and thus they too show a complete ignorance of science as well.

For example, Most of the pundits who denounce global warming are simply ignorant of how science works. While most of the pundits who promote global warming are equally ignorant of how science works.

Therefore, the average layman, ignorant of science, accepts the false dichotomy created by dumb-asses as though it were truth, when in fact it is simply a debate between morons.

People who show a true interest and understanding of science will read the actual journal articles and compare and review them directly with the proper scientific skepticism necessary when reviewing scientific material.

The problem is that people think a scientific conclusion is akin to a claim of veracity. This is not true. All studies are simply making a conclusion about the support/non-support of the hypothesis.

This still does not make the hypothesis true, only that it was eitehr supported or not supported by the results of the study.

If people understood this correctly, they would hesitate to call something "junk science" because of the way it is reported in the news, because they would be aware of the media's total ignorance of science.
 
Impractical? I don't think so. I've used DNS for over a year now and it works great. (about 120 words per minute) But you get what you pay for.

Dragon Naturally Speaking 10 Pro goes for $200

What do you use it for?

I feel that rambling doesn't help my papers. I think that spoken English and written English are almost two different languages.
 
Back
Top Bottom