It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
SOURCE
Recently identified electrical activity on Saturn's largest moon bolsters arguments that Titan is the kind of place that could harbor life.
At a brisk -350 degrees Fahrenheit (-180 Celsius), Titan is currently much too cold to host anything close to life as we know it, scientists say.
But a new study reports faint signs of a natural electric field in Titan's thick cloud cover that are similar to the energy radiated by lightning on Earth.
Lightning is thought to have sparked the chemical reactions that led to the origin of life on our planet.
Originally posted by silver6ix
Im sorry but theres no proof of this. Whats that quote you like to use? Something to do with proof. I dont see a NatGeo article proving anything.
Some people come up with some really fantastic stuff. Its like a sci fi movie.
Originally posted by InfaRedMan
I guess Titan could achieve this through a major increase in volcanism. Otherwise it will be waiting far too long for the solar changes required to heat the planet up to a viable state... like millions of years!
Originally posted by silver6ix
Im not for accepting blindly whats written in the media. As for "credible" well who defines "credible"? Is he credible because he says what people want him to say? Because he wears a blue tie on mondays?
You would need to be clear on what makes him credible, I just see a guys name in a media article. Can I even be sure he said it? Dont the media lie?
Im confused, you dont normally ask these sorts of questions, savior? Normally you ask for "credible" people and proof, so isnt it correct that I do the same or does that only apply to certain issues?
Originally posted by SaviorComplex
This demonstrates that you lied beforehand. You claim that the article is not credible and science fiction. When I asked why, you could not answer the question. Instead, you made it about me.
Again, I ask if you have any sincere comments or thoughts, please tell us. Do not make this about me.
Originally posted by silver6ix
I did answer, what is credibility? Why should this scientist be credible?
Originally posted by silver6ix
I could easily show you a link of a specialist of equal calibre saying, I dont know, lets say extra terrestrial life.
Originally posted by silver6ix
Does that make it credible and true, I believe you iformed me that it doesnt right?
Originally posted by silver6ix
I dont believe it, I think its science fiction as theres no proof that its real.
You do realize that anyone can write anything, gleaning information from various sources, then claim anything they want about it.
Tomorrow, I could write a paper based on various claims and myths about UFOs...and it wouldn't make a lick of it true. But I guarantee people would believe it's true, just because it "corresponds."
Originally posted by silver6ix
On topic.
I dont believe the article because I dont trust the source, I dont see the writer as credible and the facts presented are incredible, therefore to take it seriously as fact id require proof of fact.
Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Originally posted by silver6ix
On topic.
I dont believe the article because I dont trust the source, I dont see the writer as credible and the facts presented are incredible, therefore to take it seriously as fact id require proof of fact.
Why do you not trust the source? Why do you not find the writer credible? Why do you think the facts presented are not worthy of being taken seriously?
With the publication of “Feathers for T. rex?” by Christopher P. Sloan in its November issue, National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism. But at the same time the magazine may now claim to have taken its place in formal taxonomic literature.
National Geographic is popularly regarded as an important scientific magazine that carries out research all over the planet and shares the results with its readers. The magazine is a major source of information in a great number of important areas, yet few readers are aware of the extent to which it passes this information through an ideological 'filter' before handing it on to its readers, and sometimes even twists the data according to the demands of this ideology and builds-up completely imaginary stories.
The ideology in question in National Geographic is a blend of philosophical naturalism and the current brand of evolutionism, known as Neo-Darwinism. In the name of defending that theory, it generally presents prejudiced views of discoveries, and even opens the door to scientific falsehoods. For example, there was the falsehood of the Archaeoraptor fossil, which was presented by National Geographic in 1998 as an infallible evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but which later proved to have been 'hand made.'
Here is the National Geographic article on their investigation.
On February 3, 2000, National Geographic issued a press release stating that the fossil could be a composite, and that an internal investigation had begun. In that same month Bill Allen, National Geographic editor, told Nature that he was "furious" to learn that the fossil might have been faked. In the March issue, in the forum section, a letter from Dr. Xu Xing pointed out that the tail section probably did not match the upper body. In October of 2000 National Geographic published the results of their investigation, in an article written by investigative journalist Lewis M. Simmons. They concluded that the fossil was a composite and that virtually everyone involved in the project had made some mistakes
Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Could you please source those quotes about National Geographic? They seem to have come from a 1999 letter about about archeaoraptor which circulated on creationist websites. And while accusing National Geographic of having an ideological bias, you neglect to mention that accusation comes from those same creationist websites, angered that a science magazine embraces evolution.
And rather than hide from the archeaoraptor issue, National Geographic has discussed it, such as here and here.
Originally posted by silver6ix
Both quotes were from different sources, the first was from the Curator of the National Museum in Washington, credible enough
Originally posted by silver6ix
and the second was from an environmental website.
Originally posted by silver6ix
Google National Geographic and add, lies, propaganda or trash, and theres a whole stack of information on probably the most worthless science tabloid in existence...