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.

 

Large parts of Mars 'habitable', scientists say.

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   
And by the way, what does anyone know of what life in the cosmos is actually suppose to be and its living environment????

what lives on earth is one thing, what lives on mars or in the sun is another thing, hell there's living forms of life that's here that's yet to even be seen and in its hostile or temperate living environments.

I just love arm chair literates




posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


'We' the human race. Why don't you try spending less time reading woo woo information sources that claim everything is secret and try reading scientific sources of information, all of this 'secret' information is in the public domain and accessible. I can't open your eyes for you



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by sweetnlow
 



As you have been there and know everything that exists on the planet???
I think until man actually steps foot on the planet and gets a real look for himself its all speculative and anyone formulating any opinion should just remain silent


I'm not the one jumping to conclusions on this thread. Which reminds me... what's taking Zorgon so long?



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
reply to post by sweetnlow
 


We already have highly detailed data and imagery from several orbiters and rovers to form opinions from. However to jump to assumptions and make claims without all the required evidence to back it up is completely unscientific and slightly religious.


This is a scientific research.
Are you try to dismantle the Astrobiology research?


Or are you try to prove that these Scientists and all the "ASTROBIOLOGY Board" are pushed by a religious behavior?


Or are you a NAY sayers?



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by sweetnlow
 



what lives on earth is one thing, what lives on mars or in the sun is another thing, hell there's living forms of life that's here that's yet to even be seen and in its hostile or temperate living environments.


Exactly why the prospect of finding life on Mars is so exciting! We have only terrestrial life to study. Martian life may have developed ways of finding alternatives to photosynthesis, which in turn, makes the possibility of life on the gas giant moons more likely.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 



Or are you try to prove that these Scientists and all the "ASTROBIOLOGY Board" are pushed by a religious behavior?


Again, you somehow fail to spot the word "potential." In fact, the terrestrial "deep hot biosphere" is itself controversial. I found Gold's book persuasive, but I'm not a biologist.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Hopefully the Curiosity rover will answer a few of these questions when it lands and begins to explore on Mars in the near future. The methane question is still being debated as to it either being biological or geology in nature.


Methane -- four atoms of hydrogen bound to a carbon atom -- is the main component of natural gas on Earth. It's of interest to astrobiologists because organisms release much of Earth's methane as they digest nutrients. However, other purely geological processes, like oxidation of iron, also release methane. "Right now, we don’t have enough information to tell if biology or geology -- or both -- is producing the methane on Mars," said Mumma.


www.nasa.gov...

I hope the Curiosity rover makes a successful landing and returns volumes of data to lay to rest these theories and claims and to help us to understand planetary science much better than we do now.
edit on 9-1-2012 by dcmb1409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


You're seriously making an argument where none exists. His comment about being 'religious' was in reference to you specifically, and had nothing to do with the data or those who actually originally presented it.

The fact is that the possibility of life deep beneath the surface of Mars is not a new concept, which is what he was trying to explain to you.

All-in-all this is simply hypothesis and we will not know for certain until more data is gathered to provide evidence one way or another. From what we know so far, yes, it does look to be possible, but we won't know until we know and that will happen when we have the evidence to prove it...not just a hypothesis.

So you can try to twist statements into arguments refuting what you've posted when all anyone really has done is made comment about your manner in presenting it. This isn't build-up to some imminent disclosure of what you seem to be convinced is true.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
who's to say that photosynthesis is even required to create and nurture life?
there could be gas creatures even non carbon based creatures that survive off pressure and Kelvin temperatures, and as i said, who are we to determine life, its pretty much all fantasy land, kind of like the existence of HIV and how its determined someone even has it



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


Dashdragon beat me to it, as he said I was not making that remark in relation to the paper.

And the fact such papers are available in the public domain is evidence that it is not kept secret and leaked slowly as you try to imply in your opening statement.... A lot of us (scientists) do believe that we will find evidence of microbial life on Mars, though there are those that don't. The thing is, we only have limited data available at present and making assumptions without good enough evidence is not good scientific practice.
Besides, it was 'obvious' that the Earth was the center of the universe once but this 'obvious' 'fact' turned out to be more wrong than the best scientific minds at the time could imagine.

Personally I am optimistic that not only Mars, but also several other bodies in the solar system might have basic life. Perhaps even more complex lifeforms (similar to deep sea creatures on Earth)! But such hopeful speculation is dangerous when speaking as a scientist because members of the public will quickly latch onto 'scientist says....' and take it as gospel. The fact is, we don't have any real evidence to back it up, we only have *some* evidence that makes it a *possibility* based on the *limited information* we know.
But while people take funding away from entities like NASA to fund wars and you have conspiracy types slagging them off calling them stupid names like 'Never A Straight Answer' then we (the human race) lose our ability to fund the missions we need to send to find out.




top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join