It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
Soon after NASA-funded researchers announced this month they had found a new life form that thrives on arsenic, critics took to the blogosphere with skeptical views and downright insults.
"I don't know whether the authors are just bad scientists or whether they're unscrupulously pushing NASA's 'There's life in outer space!' agenda," wrote Canadian microbiologist Rosie Redfield in a blog that ignited the web furor.
The criticism spread with lightning speed, sparking a wide debate over what....
Obviously something can't be taken as a fact until there is some solid undeniable evidence, but at the same time, dismissing something as "flim flam" pretty much straight away is also quite stupid. Looking back in history, every time a new theory is presented, it is immediately dismissed just because it's new and it challenges the status quo of science. Some of the leading theories today took centuries to become widely accepted by the scientific community, and I think people's unwillingness to take a new theory seriously is part of the reason it's taken the world so long to advance in scientific theory, even after the dark ages ended, there are too many big egos in science and people more concerned with being right than with discovering the truth. As for extraterrestrial life, again there's no proper evidence, but with all the billions of planets in the universe, what are the chances that only one would have life on it?