Originally posted by NavalFC
Do you even know what conjecture means? Something tells me you dont:
Pronunciation
noun, verb, -tured, -tur⋅ing.
–noun 1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.
2. an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.
3. Obsolete. the interpretation of signs or omens.
Nothing of what I said is conjecture.
This is what i mean. Condescending remarks do not earn any extra credit, and certainly will not endear others to your views. Taking the approach
used above will not help.
However, i did bold the part of your definition which applies to your statements. "Guess; Speculation"....they seem to describe it quite well. The
reason: because you only can base it off of other information, and have no direct knowledge (and many gaps in evidence).
First lets start with evolution, yes evolution is a proven fact.
I know what your going to say "but its only a theory"
Well, what you and many others seem to forget is that te word theory in Science means something much different then the word theory in normal speak
between people. The only way it could be consiered any stronger in scientific terms is if it were the law of evolution, a term reserved fr things that
are able to be expressed through mathematics. The gross majoririty of the scientific world considers evolution a PROVEN FACT no matte how much people
like otherwise, an HAS manage to trace back the lineage of evolution completely from the origin of life to sea creatures to land creatures to us. And
contrary to what creatonists try to push, the fossil record is chalk full of transitional fossils illustrating a clear line of descent, and indeed the
genetic record is as well, as by examining chromosonal fusion, retro viral integration and other things from the genetic record science has
established a common decent. So trying to say that "evolution i just a theory" or "hasnt been proven" is bull#. and dare I say,
CONJECTURE..especially when evolution is still occuring to this day
You should not use fowl language on this site, as it violates TAC, which you agreed to when you signed up for membership. I would suspect if you
don't right that, your experience here will be shortlived.
What you refer to as evolution may, in fact, be genetic drift. However, from a scientific standpoint I do not believe that evolution is written in
stone. The primary flaw? The assumption that change happens gradually and continuously over long periods of time. No account for cataclysmic
change, and no account for rapid change.
What evolution amounts to, from my perspective, is the attempt of man to label and understand that which is far more complex than he can imagine. Our
points of reference derive from a relatively brief and unusually calm period in which our higher form of society currently has developed within.
Since the time of Darwin's travels to Galapagos, we have discovered so much more, and learned that slow and steady is not the way of nature. Despite
our desire for it to be so.
Genetic drift certainly DOES happen. I will not deny that. But "evolution"? That is a huge leap of faith.
Now onto Mars, yes a planet losing its magentic field would cause the effects described. Trying to say the solar wind is just negative ions is
foolish, as the solar wind does have an effect on un protected things. Its called the solar wind for a reason and our magneitc field is what protects
us from Solar wind, and from the Suns radiation. Infact in areas on Earth where the magentic field is weakest you can see a phenomenon called aurora,
whre the sky is filled with lots of colors as cosmic rays from the sun strike the Earths atmosphere..
The aurora's are caused by "pinching" of the magnetic lines in the polar regions. But this has nothing to do with what i said.
As well, the solar wind has very little to do with the discussion, but if you wish to dwell on it for a moment, we can discuss it. The solar wind is
more than negative ions. It is positive and negative ions. From a the perspective of chemistry, its effects could range and electrolysis of a
planets oceans is certainly not improbable. Especially if the water in those oceans was a salty brine (as on Earth). You DO realize that the
"charged" part of the ions (anions and cations) is important, from a chemical standpoint, correct? And this may explain why we see clouds in the
Martian sky.
But, what does this have to do with the possibility of life still existing on Mars? High radiation means nothing. Life can thrive in ANY
environment, as we have seen with our own Earthbound "extremophiles".
And we know ths happened on mars, why? its called evidence. using measurments from ancient martian meteotrites that have landed on Earth we have
established that at one time Mars had a strong magneic field, and this coincides to the period of time when Mars would have been an Earth-like planet.
And passing through our VERY highly charged atmosphere would not effect the meteors that we assume come from Mars?
Furthermore, the asertion that the same thing that happens on Mars would leave the Earthbare in 10,000 years.. That is pure nonsense as man man made
structures have survived thousands upon thousands of years, such a structures and objects from ancient egypt, ancient messopotamia and sumeria and
ancient grease.
Especially if the Earth had no atmosphere after the solar wind took it and our oceans were gone. Without oxygen oxyidation and rusting of metal can
not occur and thus metals such as steel and others wont be broken down.
Ancient man seemed to build better than us. But even their monuments (after only a couple thousand years) has needed quite a bit of maintenance and
renovation.
However, we use reinforced concrete. The "rebar", as it begins to oxidize, swells outwards. As it swells, it creates issues with pressure on the
surrounding concrete. Which causes it to crumble. I would assume that a lack of magnetosphere would impact this as well, greater amounts of oxygen
would be available in the atmosphere after the electrlytic process.
I would also suspect that if we had the windstorms seen on Mars (which, to me, indicate some level of electric capability as well as atmosphere), that
after 10k years we would see significant deterioration of landmarks. To the point that they could easily be unrecognizable. Sand abrasion.
Biological material such as human remains and such would likely have been long gone, but however evidence of our civilization would remain well beyond
that, and indeed if someone did come here, he evidence of us would be CLEAR. You wouldnt need to find little pictures in pattern and such BS as people
do with mars. The science is very clear
Ahh, but we haven't "been there" yet. All we have are images and pictures.
You are correct, many of the images from Mars are percieved incorrectly. However, there are so many more that are left without explanation.
I would also add that we are talking about a scale of time far exceeding 10k years. Personally, i would put it in the range of about 100k years. But
that is arbitrary, and my reason for that time scale is not something I am going to go into here.
I would also add the the science is only very clear because it excludes that which it cannot explain.
). 
