It's not "faith" it's a hypotheses. There is a critical difference: a hypotheses is changed when new facts are introduced.Faith personified. Now faith is the substance of things HOPED FOR, the evidence of things not yet seen. Philosophy...not Science.
Too many flaws:
1. The paper was not peer reviewed.
2. No DNA could be extracted, so one can't tell if, in fact if there were microorganisms, whether their orign was from earth.
3. For the length of time the meteorite was lying on the earth, it almost certainly was tainted with earthly microorganisms.
4. There's no way to demonstrate that the apparent remains were, in fact, once living microorganisms. Other origins are possible.
In short, although the meteorite had orgins in space, the paper cannot credibly conclude that any fossilized remains of microorganisms (if that's what the fossilized remains are) in the meteorite also had origins in space.
NASA scientists discover evidence of alien life
Evidence of a form of life (micro-organisms) not originating on Earth and unfamiliar to our scientists have been discovered. The research is open to the scientific community and although this has yet to be confirmed by a third-party, we have proof and the next step is to attempt to disprove the hypothesis. But considering fossil evidence was found in a meteorite, originating from outer-space, I highly doubt it will be disproved. Alien life exists as a scientific fact.
Comments?
NASA scientists discover evidence of alien life
Evidence of a form of life (micro-organisms) not originating on Earth and unfamiliar to our scientists have been discovered. The research is open to the scientific community and although this has yet to be confirmed by a third-party, we have proof and the next step is to attempt to disprove the hypothesis. But considering fossil evidence was found in a meteorite, originating from outer-space, I highly doubt it will be disproved. Alien life exists as a scientific fact.
Comments?
"I am the very model of a scientist Salarian!
I've studied species, Turian, Asari, and Batarian.
I'm quite good at genetics (as a subset of biology),
because I am an expert (which I know is a tautology).
My xenoscience studies range from urban to agrarian -
I am the very model of a scientist Salarian!"
It's not "faith" it's a hypotheses. There is a critical difference: a hypotheses is changed when new facts are introduced.
"That is a claim that Mr Hoover has been making for some years," said Carl Pilcher, director of NASA's Astrobiology Institute.
"I am not aware of any support from other meteorite researchers for this rather extraordinary claim that this evidence of microbes was present in the meteorite before the meteorite arrived on Earth and and was not the result of contamination after the meteorite arrived on Earth," he told AFP.
[...]
Paul Hertz, chief scientist of NASA's Science Mission Directorate in Washington, also issued a statement saying NASA did not support Hoover's findings.
Professor Tom Lehrer? :mrgreen:
It's going to be reviewed within the next 3 days by 100+ scientists.
Let's see what they say.
It's a fact that there are fossilized bacteria in the meteorite. The hypothesis is that it was present in the meteorite before it landed on the Earth and that the bacteria fossils were formed in it originated on another planet. Disproving a hypothesis doesn't make it a lie, it makes it a mistake. For more information see a dictionary about the word "hypothesis."Then how can such even be suggested as being a FACT? If something new is introduced and the (wink, wink) "hypthesis" is changed...then the first SPECULATION was a LIE..no?
In science, there is a difference between criticism and proving a hypothesis false. Hoover's hypothesis has yet to be disproved and we have the ability to test it. Results will be in pending peer review. Until it's disproved I have an open (although skeptical) mind.It makes an extraordinary claim with very thin, subjective evidence, was published in a junk, non-peer reviewed journal, and NASA's astrobiology director has come out against the guy's claims
It's a fact that there are fossilized bacteria in the meteorite. The hypothesis is that it was present in the meteorite before it landed on the Earth and that the bacteria fossils were formed in it originated on another planet. Disproving a hypothesis doesn't make it a lie, it makes it a mistake. For more information see a dictionary about the word "hypothesis."
In science, there is a difference between criticism and proving a hypothesis false. Hoover's hypothesis has yet to be disproved and we have the ability to test it. Results will be in pending peer review. Until it's disproved I have an open (although skeptical) mind.
It's called scientific method. There are people who only study fossils. Carbon dating.Now how the hell can you make the CONCLUSION that what was found is FOSSILIZED BACTERIA
We have fossilized bacteria from pre-historic times. It's called science, look it up.What example of FOSSILIZED BACTERIA that has been proven to be fossilized life are you comparing that lump of rock to?
Richard Hoover said:If the measurements hold up, this could be end of the hegemony of man as the dominant force in the Universe, and the beginning of a new era, in which life that exists elsewhere may prove to be more than a match for the human race. I am giving copies of my paper out to 5,000 military personnel, in the hope that they will drop bombs on the house containing this demonic substance, and save mankind for the sake of...... um.... mankind.
The criticism of Hoover is that the bacteria evidence he found in the meteor might not have been there originally, due to contamination. This can be either proven or disproven. If there are fossils in the sample, carbon dating should tell us how old they are. Further study could debunk or validate the hypothesis. A scientist (or anyone with intelligence) should be skeptical but keep an open mind.BREAKING NEWS - ("hilarious" story)
It's going to be reviewed within the next 3 days by 100+ scientists.
Let's see what they say.
The criticism of Hoover is that the bacteria evidence he found in the meteor might not have been there originally, due to contamination. This can be either proven or disproven. If there are fossils in the sample, carbon dating should tell us how old they are. Further study could debunk or validate the hypothesis. A scientist (or anyone with intelligence) should be skeptical but keep an open mind.
If you have proof it's a fraudulent claim, post it. But don't act like an indignant child, please. I'm only interested in the facts, not the controversy. If it's proven to be a false claim, I'll be disappointed, but it's expected. If not, that's another story. In the meantime, let's not become dumb beasts without reason or curiosity.
The way science works is forming a hypothesis and either proving or disproving that hypothesis. A NASA scientists has provided a hypothesis based on evidence he claims to exist, if it does and if it can be tested to be what he says it is, then it can be proven true. If that isn't the case, it can be disproven.Scientifically speaking, it is not up to me, or anybody else, to prove that something is false. It is up to him to prove that it is true. That is the way it works.
When an impartial third-party reviews the research and says it's not true, then I'll make up my mind. It would appear that the journal is not credible, but I have no intention of taking your word for it. I believe in tangible evidence and verifiable proof, plenty of great discoveries have been made by mistake or by amateurs.If you are a reasonable person and a critical thinker, then you tell me, after knowing all this, whether the article is credible or not.
The way science works is forming a hypothesis and either proving or disproving that hypothesis. A NASA scientists has provided a hypothesis based on evidence he claims to exist, if it does and if it can be tested to be what he says it is, then it can be proven true. If that isn't the case, it can be disproven.
How do you not understand that? There is a peer review that is going take place soon over this controversy.
When an impartial third-party reviews the research and says it's not true, then I'll make up my mind. It would appear that the journal is not credible, but I have no intention of taking your word for it. I believe in tangible evidence and verifiable proof, plenty of great discoveries have been made by mistake or by amateurs.
What I wont do is make up my mind about something that hasn't actually been debunked.
This thing asked me out last Friday for a drink :shock:
No, That's not how it works at all - The scientific method puts the onus on the one making the claim to prove it. It doesn't put the onus on someone to attempt to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on whoever makes the claim. Period. But you are welcome to try and prove a negative, if you really want to:
OK, right now, I AM holding a baseball. Prove that I'm not.
While you are attempting to figure this one out, I think I will grab a beer and some popcorn, and entertain myself by watching you turn into a pretzel. LOL.
There is a difference between Scientific Method and a peer review.No, That's not how it works at all - The scientific method puts the onus on the one making the claim to prove it.
In short it is the process of forming a hypothesis and either proving or disproving that hypothesis. This is what the researcher does. A peer review follows similar steps, attempting to prove or disprove the results. Obviously if it can't be proven, by default the researchers claim is therefore disproven.* Ask a Question
* Do Background Research
* Construct a Hypothesis
* Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
* Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
* Communicate Your Results
Duh? I think we are talking about apples and oranges.It doesn't put the onus on someone to attempt to prove a negative.