Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The latest Mars mission ahs landed, in the lower icey planes of the north polar region of mars, probably more chance of finding life frozen in water maybe.

But the chances of accidently landing and digging in a certian area where something was, is very remote to say the least. Unless Mars was teaming with life.http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/images/phoenix2/firstshots_strip2.jpg

Its just a big dumbass rock floating in space, probably just find some tiny insignificant bacteria, enough to say 'Yay look bacteria' but not substantial enough to qualify as 'life'.

since when does bacteria not qualify as life...if they were to find bacteria it would an astonishing discovery...the 1st rock solid evidence of life on another planet...

but i personally dont think they'll find anything....it might well be there...but i dont think they'll find it....not with this mission anyway

as i said in another thread...there is methane in the mars atmosphere and methane degrades in sunlight in only a couple of centuries...there are only 2 sources of methane that could be on mars...1 in volcanic activity...although there has been no evidence of sulpher dioxide which is one of the main gases given out by volcanoes....the other is methanobacteria....methane producing bacteria

it's quite possible it could be from the latter and thus there may be or may have been bacteria on mars in the last couple of hundred years

it's also quite likely that unless the craft we keep sending to mars are treated with radiation to kill off life...that we are "contaminating" mars with life from earth...and then we detect that same life 20 years down the line and get a false +ve for life on mars

Originally posted by jaden101
since when does bacteria not qualify as life...if they were to find bacteria it would an astonishing discovery...the 1st rock solid evidence of life on another planet...

but i personally dont think they'll find anything....it might well be there...but i dont think they'll find it....not with this mission anyway

as i said in another thread...there is methane in the mars atmosphere and methane degrades in sunlight in only a couple of centuries...there are only 2 sources of methane that could be on mars...1 in volcanic activity...although there has been no evidence of sulpher dioxide which is one of the main gases given out by volcanoes....the other is methanobacteria....methane producing bacteria

it's quite possible it could be from the latter and thus there may be or may have been bacteria on mars in the last couple of hundred years

it's also quite likely that unless the craft we keep sending to mars are treated with radiation to kill off life...that we are "contaminating" mars with life from earth...and then we detect that same life 20 years down the line and get a false +ve for life on mars

Well, bacteria forms under pretty...hmm...'common' conditions, I mean you can potentially find it anywhere. So finding it on Mars might be some new discovery on a different planet, but really....unless it was some brand new specimen of bacteria that couldnt be reproduced under Earth conditions, it isnt that exciting.

Originally posted by Outbound
Well, bacteria forms under pretty...hmm...'common' conditions, I mean you can potentially find it anywhere. So finding it on Mars might be some new discovery on a different planet, but really....unless it was some brand new specimen of bacteria that couldnt be reproduced under Earth conditions, it isnt that exciting.

quite the opposite in reality...bacteria is capable of surviving in the most extreme conditions in the world...there has been caves discovered that were completely sealed off from the outside world for thousands of years....the cave walls were covered in bacteria that drew nutrients directly from the rock...harldy "common" conditions...

bacteria can survive where no other life can

there was an interview in new scientist a few weeks ago with a specialist in life in extreme conditions...he said no matter where life exists on this planet...every single lifeform needs liquid water....LIQUID being the important aspect because as it freezes it expands and this, in most cases of living organisms, ruptures the cells and kills them (although there are cases of species of frogs which effectively freeze solid over winter, underground, and still survive because their vital organs have an organic anti-freeze that prevent the frozen water in the cells from solidifying

Originally posted by jaden101
quite the opposite in reality...bacteria is capable of surviving in the most extreme conditions in the world...there has been caves discovered that were completely sealed off from the outside world for thousands of years....the cave walls were covered in bacteria that drew nutrients directly from the rock...harldy "common" conditions...

bacteria can survive where no other life can

Originally posted by Outbound
Well, bacteria forms under pretty...hmm...'common' conditions, I mean you can potentially find it anywhere.

We're on the same page, but I think I'm confusing it a bit, I cant think of the right words right now to explain.

What you said is where I was going with it, it can be found anywhere. I said 'common' in terms of bacterial survival, not normal living organism survival. It's under your lounge, in the sink, on ice in Antarctica, so finding it on Mars is kind of a 'we know theres a high chance its there, just not sure where exactly' idea. I just don't find it as interesting because of the fact it probably actually exists on Mars if they have found water sources. To me, its about as exciting as bringing back a rock from the moon, its made from the same compounds, under the same conditions, so it's basically just a souvenir.

Im not hoping for aliens or any of that sci fi crap, just something a bit more interesting than same old, same old bacteria.

yeah i know what you mean...but still...to the scientific world it will be considered an epic discovery...most likely the main person or team of people who make the discovery will get all sorts of nobel prizes for it

but at the same time...it will be "just bacteria" really

Some people are considerig buying property there

Better get used to "just bacteria," because that may be what the vast bulk of extraterrestrial life is. Remember that bacteria lived on Earth for over 3 billion years before the Cambrian explosion happened; multicellular life has only been around for about a half billion years. Plus, I think some scientists believe that bacteria may still form the largest biomass currently on Earth.

Still, Martian bacteria would be quite a find. The only disappointment may be similarity in DNA structure, suggesting perhaps some kind of panspermia. What would really be great to find (not with this mission, obviously) would be extrasolar life.

In any event, I don't think we will find life this mission.

I bet they find skeletons of like Tremors and stuff.

It's possible. I also think that it will come in the form of bacteria, something really alien would be awesome, but I doubt it. Like jaden mentioned bacteria has been found in the most "uncommon" locations on this planet. Some have been found in conditions that are similar, if not equal to those on Mars, under the surface. I will definitely be keeping a close eye on this mission.

Can't these space explorations find anything exciting? Just boring rocks and hard ice.

Find E.T. or Cylons and then we'll talk.

Originally posted by jaden101
since when does bacteria not qualify as life...if they were to find bacteria it would an astonishing discovery...the 1st rock solid evidence of life on another planet...


Agreed, not sure why people are playing it down as it not being important.

Originally posted by Robtard
Agreed, not sure why people are playing it down as it not being important.

Because if we find life on another planet, then the fundamentalist idea that life is unique to Earth is proved wrong. They are beginning to wiggle, just in case.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Because if we find life on another planet, then the fundamentalist idea that life is unique to Earth is proved wrong. They are beginning to wiggle, just in case.

Whoa, your avatar blinked at me.

It would be pretty cool if they find some abandon ancient civilization buildings...I mean...there is gotta be at least one out there....so much space...so many possibilities...

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
It would be pretty cool if they find some abandon ancient civilization buildings...I mean...there is gotta be at least one out there....so much space...so many possibilities...

There is a difference between "the Universe" and "Mars."

*takes notes*

Is this landing craft not capable of moving around the surface of the planet?

Originally posted by Devil King
Is this landing craft not capable of moving around the surface of the planet?

Yup. Totally immobile.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yup. Totally immobile.


That's what I thought. Also totally ridiculous.

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
Whoa, your avatar blinked at me.

You just now noticed?

The rover is mobile.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Because if we find life on another planet, then the fundamentalist idea that life is unique to Earth is proved wrong. They are beginning to wiggle, just in case.

They'll just revamp (yet again) and say "Jesus-God created it/them too". It certainly wouldn't be an obstacle.

Remember, when it doubt or can't think of something logical, always fall back on the trusty "God works in mysterious ways" line.

Originally posted by Robtard
The rover is mobile.

Phoenix is not a rover.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Phoenix is not a rover.

But there is a rover on mars and it is mobile.

Originally posted by Robtard
But there is a rover on mars and it is mobile.

Not very relevant to a thread about the Phoenix.

Sure it is, as part of the thread is 'finding life on mars'. So calm down.

why the hell is this a poll?

Who the hell would WANT to find Aliens??

Aliens = death.

We all saw Independence day right?

Originally posted by HmmK?
Who the hell would WANT to find Aliens??

Aliens = death.

We all saw Independence day right?

Have you seen Communion or Fire In The Sky?

Aliens = Anal Probes, sometimes.

"Thats MY sperm, alien!!"

Originally posted by Robtard

Aliens = Anal Probes

Then I will allow it.

Originally posted by Robtard
They'll just revamp (yet again) and say "Jesus-God created it/them too". It certainly wouldn't be an obstacle.

Remember, when it doubt or can't think of something logical, always fall back on the trusty "God works in mysterious ways" line.

Luckily, Mormons have believed that life has been on other planets for over 150 years.

We'll be proved....right?

Originally posted by Outbound
We're on the same page, but I think I'm confusing it a bit, I cant think of the right words right now to explain.

What you said is where I was going with it, it can be found anywhere. I said 'common' in terms of bacterial survival, not normal living organism survival. It's under your lounge, in the sink, on ice in Antarctica, so finding it on Mars is kind of a 'we know theres a high chance its there, just not sure where exactly' idea. I just don't find it as interesting because of the fact it probably actually exists on Mars if they have found water sources. To me, its about as exciting as bringing back a rock from the moon, its made from the same compounds, under the same conditions, so it's basically just a souvenir.

Im not hoping for aliens or any of that sci fi crap, just something a bit more interesting than same old, same old bacteria.

that's the point though. Bacteria is common on Earth. It is the most common lifeform. To find it on another planet may be mundane to you but it means that other planets are not unlike Earth and do have life. Say we find bacteria on Mars.....then later on Europa or Titan. Well, it then seems that life exists in a great deal of places.......under different conditions. We know how life evolved here, this opens up the possibilities of evolved life in the past or future not only in those places but anywhere in the universe.

Even if it's the same ol' bacteria we have here on Earth, where it's found and under what conditions is what is important. Beginning with the same DNA, the conditons of different ecosystems allowing or disallowing different mutations to flourish over millions of years is the difference between a human being and a blue whale.

If bacteria is found on another celestial body vastly different than our own it opens up the door for finding vastly different advanced life in our universe. Perhaps finding bacteria on Mars means that advanced life will exist there in a billion years. Perhaps it means that advanced life existed there a billion years ago. The same can be said about any place we find bacteria. The more places we find bacteria, the greater the chance is that the advanced life won't be a billion years in the past or a billion years in the future but right now.



my personal speculation: we will find bacteria on Mars. we will find atleast bacteria if not simple-complex multi-celled life under Europa's ice. Life is abundant in our universe. Anywhere it can exist, even under the most harsh conditions, it does. We will eventually find extra-solar planets where the conditions are not harsh enough to prevent life from flourishing and evolving.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Luckily, Mormons have believed that life has been on other planets for over 150 years.

We'll be proved....right?

The book of Mormon is often rewritten, if you're able to find an older book, which is highly unlikely, since the LDS Church buys and destroys older versions once something has been added or deleted, you'd see.

You will, but it will be written after the fact.

-

Anyhow, ED made a good point, bacteria is a start and could be the start of greater life to come.

Cathlics were recently told that life on other planets does not effecct their religion. Catholic observatories have been searching for life in space for years, much along the lines of the SETI program.

As for Phoenix being immobile, it strikes me as a needless step backwards. Yes, there are mobile craft on Mars (I don't know if they're still working) but how much harder would it have been to slap some wheels on this thing and hook it up to On-Star? It's landed in a place that is more likely to have more of what NASA is looking for, and it's just going to sit there analyzing the same 10 sq yards of dirt? That just strikes me as asinine. Billions of dollars to go all that way and just sit there until we pull the plug?

Originally posted by Devil King
Cathlics were recently told that life on other planets does not effecct their religion. Catholic observatories have been searching for life in space for years, much along the lines of the SETI program.

As for Phoenix being immobile, it strikes me as a needless step backwards. Yes, there are mobile craft on Mars (I don't know if they're still working) but how much harder would it have been to slap some wheels on this thing and hook it up to On-Star? It's landed in a place that is more likely to have more of what NASA is looking for, and it's just going to sit there analyzing the same 10 sq yards of dirt? That just strikes me as asinine. Billions of dollars to go all that way and just sit there until we pull the plug?

The two other rovers are still working, but they are beginning to show their age.

This lander is not a rover because it is testing for a future mission that will land, just like this one, and gather samples, then return them to Earth inside a rocket. You have to have a stable and stationary platform to do that.

And if this particual locale is not sufficient? Should we send another billion dollar device to check a spot a mile away?

Originally posted by Devil King
And if this particual locale is not sufficient? Should we send another billion dollar device to check a spot a mile away?

The plan is to send another rover to find life. If they find life, then a lander will gather the sample and return it to Earth.

If you go to the NASA web site and read up on future missions, you will know for yourself.

So, the Phoenix isn't there to check this location to see if it's a suitable landing site for another lander? A lander that will follow the next craft, a rover?

Originally posted by Devil King
So, the Phoenix isn't there to check this location to see if it's a suitable landing site for another lander? A lander that will follow the next craft, a rover?

That is what I believe, but the plans keep changing. This was the 3rd attempt at this mission, and the rovers have been working for a lot longer then first planed. I have seen an artist concept of the next generation of rovers, and they will make the rovers their now look like Path Finder.

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
I bet they find skeletons of like Tremors and stuff.

Originally posted by Robtard
The book of Mormon is often rewritten, if you're able to find an older book, which is highly unlikely, since the LDS Church buys and destroys older versions once something has been added or deleted, you'd see.

You will, but it will be written after the fact.

Right, because the old Hebrew "if and" clauses that were replaced with the more familiar English "if then" clauses, the word misspellings, the verse restructuring, grammatical corrections, punctuation corrections, are definitely not reasons to alter the original text....which amounted to about 5000 changes.




I know my religion better than you do, of course.

BTW, my grand pappy has a second edition BoM. I read some of it (under his careful eye). I didn't notice anything different other than some restructuring.

However, I wasn't referring to the BoM, I was referring to the "Doctrine and Covenants" and Mormon doctrine in general.

Now that you brought up a very old and long rebutted anti-Mormon talking point, please read the entirety of the following:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/myturn.shtml#foreword

http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

If you have anymore questions or concerns, take this to the religion forum or PM. I made my comment NOT to talk about the validity of Mormons, I made the comment, rather, to be a smartass....ergo the smartass smilie.


Now back on topic.

Originally posted by Schecter
"Thats MY sperm, alien!!"

ffs a gta4 reference and nobody lols. i hate you all.

Originally posted by Schecter
ffs a gta4 reference and nobody lols. i hate you all.

I haven't played that game, yet. I don't have time.*

Forgive me?



*For those smartasses, I'm at work right now!!! I have time at work when nothing is broken!

Originally posted by dadudemon
Right, because the old Hebrew "if and" clauses that were replaced with the more familiar English "if then" clauses, the word misspellings, the verse restructuring, grammatical corrections, punctuation corrections, are definitely not reasons to alter the original text....which amounted to about 5000 changes.




I know my religion better than you do, of course.

BTW, my grand pappy has a second edition BoM. I read some of it (under his careful eye). I didn't notice anything different other than some restructuring.

However, I wasn't referring to the BoM, I was referring to the "Doctrine and Covenants" and Mormon doctrine in general.

Now that you brought up a very old and long rebutted anti-Mormon talking point, please read the entirety of the following:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/myturn.shtml#foreword

http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

If you have anymore questions or concerns, take this to the religion forum or PM. I made my comment NOT to talk about the validity of Mormons, I made the comment, rather, to be a smartass....ergo the smartass smilie.


Now back on topic.

Why would the inerrant word of God need 5,000, let alone 1 change?

You know your religion as well as you're told, there's a difference.

You didn't look hard enough then, ask to borrow it and read page for page. I also wouldn't let the church know he has it, it's similar to contraband.

You silly clown, you edited my post where I brought the conversation back to topic, then add "Back to topic" at the end of yours. Poor show.

Originally posted by Schecter
ffs a gta4 reference and nobody lols. i hate you all.

I guess I haven't gotten to that yet. Can't wait.

Originally posted by Robtard
Why would the inerrant word of God need 5,000, let alone 1 change?

I already outlined the changes...all of which were "man's error" and have nothing to do with what is trying to be conveyed. Surely you realize this?

Originally posted by Robtard
You know your religion as well as you're told, there's a difference.

Wow, you know me so well!

Originally posted by Robtard
You didn't look hard enough then, ask to borrow it and read page for page. I also wouldn't let the church know he has it, it's similar to contraband.

Oh, so you've read both?

If what you said was so groundbreaking and a valid point, despite that massive amounts of anit-Mormonism that occurs out there, then it would matter. Since its nothing new and is very much a very poor arguing point for anti-Mormons, it is moot.

It pretty much furthers the validity of the BoM.

Originally posted by Robtard
You silly clown, you edited my post where I brought the conversation back to topic, then add "Back to topic" at the end of yours. Poor show.

"Pretentious, aren't we?" Maybe if you spent more time thinking from another person's perspective, you'd realize that I was referring to MYSELF being off topic with my post.

I guess it hurts your "piss and vinegar" persona, so don't worry, no harm done.

just hang out with the homeless guys and listen to them

Originally posted by dadudemon
Blah, blah, blah

You're right, so many people are anti-Mormon, that Mormonism must be correct, how silly of me. Now let me go to the Indian casinos and try to win some money from those decendants of ancient Israelites.

Originally posted by Schecter
just hang out with the homeless guys and listen to them

I usually just run them over, they make the loudest "thunk" sounds.

they have much wisdom to share.

So I guess another question to ask is if they do find life or signs of life on Mars, do you think they'd let the public know right away, if not ever?

Originally posted by Robtard
You're right, so many people are anti-Mormon, that Mormonism must be correct, how silly of me.

No....so many people are anti-Mormon because it puts them out of a job or makes their pockets smaller.

Originally posted by Robtard
Now let me go to the Indian casinos and try to win some money from those decendants of ancient Israelites.

Right, because all Native Americans (North or South), are descendants of Israelites.



In case you didn't catch that(Which you didn't), that was sarcasm.

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
So I guess another question to ask is if they do find life or signs of life on Mars, do you think they'd let the public know right away, if not ever?

They would not tell anyone at first. They would try to retrieve it first. Because if it got out, the religious people in the government might try to cut funding for the program.

Originally posted by Robtard
Now let me go to the Indian casinos and try to win some money from those decendants of ancient Israelites.

If that were the case, do you really think they'd give you a chance to walk away with their money?

Originally posted by Robtard
You know your religion as well as you're told, there's a difference.




Damn.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No....so many people are anti-Mormon because it puts them out of a job or makes their pockets smaller.

Right, because all Native Americans (North or South), are descendants of Israelites.

In case you didn't catch that(Which you didn't), that was sarcasm.

What?

LoL... you miss my obvious sarcasm about the American Indian/Israelites, then proceed to tell me I missed something before I respond, goon.

In case any kids are reading this, the native Americans (not a single one) are not descendants of Jews who supposedly traveled here around 400 AD.

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
So I guess another question to ask is if they do find life or signs of life on Mars, do you think they'd let the public know right away, if not ever?

If its bacteria or some other single celled organism, I think they will. If it's anything advanced or signs of something advanced that existed previously, I doubt they would right away.

Originally posted by Devil King
If that were the case, do you really think they'd give you a chance to walk away with their money?

No, but I have an angle.

Originally posted by Robtard
What?

LoL... you miss my obvious sarcasm about the American Indian/Israelites, then proceed to tell me I missed something before I respond, goon.




You're such a stupid f*ck.

Always trying to accuse me of "missing" things left and right.

You obviously didn't catch what I was trying to imply to your sarcastic comment. Why? Because you think you know jack about Mormonism but you really have no clue. You've shown that more than once now.

Also...dude, why can't sarcasm be met with sarcasm?

Originally posted by Robtard
In case any kids are reading this, the native Americans (not a single one) are not descendants of Jews who supposedly traveled here around 400 AD.

You idiot. With genetic evidence now coming into play FOR the Mormons, stupid shit like that is just that, stupid shit. You didn't read ANYTHING I posted for you to read. After you spend about 3 or 4 hours reading all of that, THEN get back to me with your ignorant comments. Make sure your response is in the religion forum under "Mormons".

Also, because you feel the need to continue to respond in here so that you can show the other posters how "cool" you are, your final response should be "I responded in the Mormon thread."


oooor....take this to PM. DUH!


You don't want to take it to PM or elsewhere because then you couldn't "show off" to your buddies...could you?


"LOL...look at da Mormons...der so stoopid! dur "


Originally posted by Robtard
No, but I have an angle.

I wouldn't really call ingnorance and stupidity an "angle".

What if they find bacteria that is exactly like bacteria found on Earth? Will people say that it was contamination?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What if they find bacteria that is exactly like bacteria found on Earth? Will people say that it was contamination?

I thought of the same thing.


There'd have to be some way to differentiate the two.

I believe that they have already done that...discarded bacteria that was common earth bacteria. Who knows, they might have found bacteria from another planet already.????

Originally posted by dadudemon
I thought of the same thing.


There'd have to be some way to differentiate the two.

I believe that they have already done that...discarded bacteria that was common earth bacteria. Who knows, they might have found bacteria from another planet already.????

That would be funny if all bacteria in this solar system were exactly the same.

Originally posted by dadudemon


You're such a stupid f*ck.

Always trying to accuse me of "missing" things left and right.

You obviously didn't catch what I was trying to imply to your sarcastic comment. Why? Because you think you know jack about Mormonism but you really have no clue. You've shown that more than once now.

Also...dude, why can't sarcasm be met with sarcasm?

You idiot. With genetic evidence now coming into play FOR the Mormons, stupid shit like that is just that, stupid shit. You didn't read ANYTHING I posted for you to read. After you spend about 3 or 4 hours reading all of that, THEN get back to me with your ignorant comments. Make sure your response is in the religion forum under "Mormons".

Also, because you feel the need to continue to respond in here so that you can show the other posters how "cool" you are, your final response should be "I responded in the Mormon thread."

oooor....take this to PM. DUH!

You don't want to take it to PM or elsewhere because then you couldn't "show off" to your buddies...could you?

"LOL...look at da Mormons...der so stoopid! dur "

I wouldn't really call ingnorance and stupidity an "angle".

You do miss things "left and right", as fact, you've proven this on more than one occasion.

Funny, you insult me for supposedly insulting Mormons, yet you go ahead and insult them yourself. Good move, hypocrite.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What if they find bacteria that is exactly like bacteria found on Earth? Will people say that it was contamination?

Possible, there's also the theory that life on Earth was originally seeded from extraterrestrial sources, eg bacteria on crashing meteors.

Originally posted by Bicnarok


Are these mobile rovers still taking pictures?

Yes, it is damaged though, one wheel has locked up. But by dragging this wheel, in accidentally uncovered traces of a hydrothermal vent, which pretty much proves that Mars had water at some point. Most scientist agree that water=life, or a great chance for it.

If there is any aliens I will do the maiming.

Originally posted by dadudemon


You're such a stupid f*ck.

Always trying to accuse me of "missing" things left and right.

You obviously didn't catch what I was trying to imply to your sarcastic comment. Why? Because you think you know jack about Mormonism but you really have no clue. You've shown that more than once now.

Also...dude, why can't sarcasm be met with sarcasm?



You idiot. With genetic evidence now coming into play FOR the Mormons, stupid shit like that is just that, stupid shit. You didn't read ANYTHING I posted for you to read. After you spend about 3 or 4 hours reading all of that, THEN get back to me with your ignorant comments. Make sure your response is in the religion forum under "Mormons".

Also, because you feel the need to continue to respond in here so that you can show the other posters how "cool" you are, your final response should be "I responded in the Mormon thread."


oooor....take this to PM. DUH!


You don't want to take it to PM or elsewhere because then you couldn't "show off" to your buddies...could you?


"LOL...look at da Mormons...der so stoopid! dur "




I wouldn't really call ingnorance and stupidity an "angle". You are breaking the rules. You must be stopped.

yet again I think any religious discussion should be taken to the religious area of this forum, or just live and let live and stick to the science.

Originally posted by Robtard
Possible, there's also the theory that life on Earth was originally seeded from extraterrestrial sources, eg bacteria on crashing meteors. Panspermia. Or, more accurately in consideration of Earth, exogenesis.

Originally posted by Robtard
You do miss things "left and right", as fact, you've proven this on more than one occasion.

No, not at all. You LIKE to think that. I HAVE missed points, but who hasn't?

As fact, you've missed plenty of points yourself.

Originally posted by Robtard
Funny, you insult me for supposedly insulting Mormons, yet you go ahead and insult them yourself. Good move, hypocrite.

Is that supposed to be some sort of trolling "bait" trick? You actually expect me to bite?


Here's what you do, you quote where I've insulted Mormons, and we will go from there.

TDSSHGIA

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, not at all. You LIKE to think that. I HAVE missed points, but who hasn't?

As fact, you've missed plenty of points yourself.

Is that supposed to be some sort of trolling "bait" trick? You actually expect me to bite?

Here's what you do, you quote where I've insulted Mormons, and we will go from there.

TDSSHGIA

Oh look, a "NO YOU" response, yet again. Clever.

If I was trying to troll or bait you, you indeed did bite by asking and furthering the topic, baboon.

Here is where you insulted Mormonism:

Originally posted by dadudemon You idiot. With genetic evidence now coming into play FOR the Mormons, stupid shit like that is just that, stupid shit."

You're saying that a, if not the very foundation of Mormonism is "stupid shit". If the native Americans are indeed not descendants of one or more of those four ancient Israelites, then the prophet Mormon most likely never made the journey to the Western Hemisphere.

Originally posted by Robtard
Oh look, a "NO YOU" response, yet again. Clever.

If I was trying to troll or bait you, you indeed did bite by asking and furthering the topic, baboon.

Well, since you failed to realize that I had no idea what you were referring to (because I asked, idiot) and I asked instead of guessing so you couldn't go (LOL! look at the idiot...he missed another point...I win because this is serious business!". You don't think too far, do you?

One of these days, you'll realize that I am calling you a hypocrite...I'm not sure when that will happen...prolly after you remove your butt plug and put it in your mouth and suck it furiously like it's the last pacifier. hmm Just remember to have your wife take pictures of that...

Originally posted by Robtard
Here is where you insulted Mormonism:



You're saying that a, if not the very foundation of Mormonism is "stupid shit". If the native Americans are indeed not descendants of one or more of those four ancient Israelites, then the prophet Mormon most likely never made the journey to the Western Hemisphere.

Oh...I understand now...you don't know how to put things into context.

Look...you just missed a point...back to your glass house.

Considering my post was a direct response to yours, in context, it was referring to YOUR point being shit, you dip shit.


oh, but wait....remember points go over MY head, right?



Maybe you find some alien bacteria on your fingers....retarded people are known to put their fingers in really foreign places. durr

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That would be funny if all bacteria in this solar system were exactly the same.





well I would imagine it would all be similar to an extent.


there would have to be some way to differentiate between the two

Originally posted by Bicnarok
yet again I think any religious discussion should be taken to the religious area of this forum, or just live and let live and stick to the science.

I apologize, homie. I respect you as a member as you have respected me. I won't post about this anymore.

Again, I'm sorry for taking your thread off topic.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Shit, fart, diarrhea splatter *repeat*

Remember, you asked me to quote you, moron.

Originally posted by Robtard
Remember, you asked me to quote you, moron.

I wonder if its possible to skip the entire single-cell organism "state" and jump straight from nothing to multicellular organisms. hmm

Seem VERY unlikely, but I COULD be possible if it was more like the birth of a multicellular "organism" being comprised of what would really be many single cell organisms like an algae or something similar.


Nah...I'm not going anywhere with this.

I am limiting my thoughts to life as I know it and not keeping an open mind to other and new forms of life.

Originally posted by ScarletSpeed



well I would imagine it would all be similar to an extent.


there would have to be some way to differentiate between the two

And how should it be differentiated?

dunno, I am not a scientist



just saying clearly the properties on other planets are different so there has to be some sort of difference.

Originally posted by Devil King
And how should it be differentiated?

while not the case on mars, it's not without the realms of possibility that a planet could be predominantly silicon and not carbon...and thus, because silicon and carbon have extremely similar properties in terms of bonding to other atoms that there could be planets with silicon based life rather than carbon based....the only problem is that silicon has a very high affinity for oxygen and produces a solid on oxidation (whereas carbon produces CO2) and thus would be difficult to dispose of in a respiratory system

Originally posted by jaden101
while not the case on mars, it's not without the realms of possibility that a planet could be predominantly silicon and not carbon...and thus, because silicon and carbon have extremely similar properties in terms of bonding to other atoms that there could be planets with silicon based life rather than carbon based....the only problem is that silicon has a very high affinity for oxygen and produces a solid on oxidation (whereas carbon produces CO2) and thus would be difficult to dispose of in a respiratory system

You're thinking that life has to follow in the footsteps of life as we know it. Aliens lifeforms could breath other gases instead of oxygen, especially ones that are silicon based. Also the possibility of them not breathing at all, though it's hard to imagine life existing without consuming something.

from a biochemical point of view, all life forms have to store energy...carbon based life forms do this as carbohydrates which have to be oxidised in order to be utillised...thus oxygen is pretty essential

the other problem is that most proteins and enzymes are chiral, meaning that they are oriented in a certain way...often reffered to as "handedness" meaning that carbon chiral compounds are opposite but not superimposable...

these chiral compounds are important as it makes enzymes specific to certain biochemical processes...

silicon doesn't form these compounds easily

the problem with life occuring in a wholely different form is that there are only so many elements in the periodic table that are capable of producing the molecules needed for biochemical activity...and these are generally limited to carbon based ones...and in theory, silicon

Originally posted by jaden101
the problem with life occuring in a wholely different form is that there are only so many elements in the periodic table that are capable of producing the molecules needed for biochemical activity...and these are generally limited to carbon based ones...and in theory, silicon

not that I disagree with you or with the probabilities of certain chemicals producing certain necessary reactions, but:

we don't know everything, life could form in ways we do not currently understand as possible, or, something analogous to life could form under completely different circumstances.

Its like Dawkins when he says life on other planets would have to go through some form of evolution. I don't disagree, and believe it to be most likely, I just find it a little, arrogant maybe?, to deem what is absolutely necessary for creatures we can currently only speculate about.

Like, do we know for sure that something that is alive must store energy? Or is it that we don't know of and can't conceive of a way for something to be alive and not consume energy? Can something be behaviourally similar to alive without storing energy (if storing energy is required for something to be life)?

well personally i think if slightly more complext life exists in a different format then it may be something such as non green photosynthesis....which would give some pretty interesting colour schemes to planets...perhaps even photosynthesis outwith the visible spectrum

might also be that other life may employ non water based solvents to conduct chemical reactions such as ammonia

but these would still be limited to carbon based...

Originally posted by jaden101
well personally i think if slightly more complext life exists in a different format then it may be something such as non green photosynthesis....which would give some pretty interesting colour schemes to planets...perhaps even photosynthesis outwith the visible spectrum

might also be that other life may employ non water based solvents to conduct chemical reactions such as ammonia

but these would still be limited to carbon based...

I'm not arguing that at all. You clearly know more about this kind of thing than I do. I'm just saying, we don't know everything

you're right...we dont...but we do know what elements can form what molecules that are neccessary to facilitate systems that life needs in order to exist...and we can eliminate most elements that dont form molecules for these processes

now it's theoretically possible that under different gravitational or radioactive conditions that life might need to utilise different branching elements in order to have properties it needs to survive...even on earth there are examples of some species using arsenic in their biochemistry where in most species it's toxic...

bit like you...i'm just theorising and putting out different ideas

Originally posted by jaden101
bit like you...i'm just theorising and putting out different ideas

lol, totally, i just wanted to be in the convo

haha...glad someone is...i'd try and join in your oil privatisation discussion but the tables are turned on that one...i dont have a clue about that stuff either...difference is i cant really be bothered finding out

Originally posted by jaden101
....which would give some pretty interesting colour schemes to planets...

Like purple cabbage. There's just something I do not trust about purple cabbage.

I'd defer to your knowledge of the periodic table, but is it possible that there are elements or gases that exist elsewhere that we know nothing about?

Originally posted by Devil King
Like purple cabbage. There's just something I do not trust about purple cabbage.

I'd defer to your knowledge of the periodic table, but is it possible that there are elements or gases that exist elsewhere that we know nothing about?

only if there are atoms which are made up of particles other than protons, neutrons and electrons...which is highly unlikely

and if not then it would be heavier elements which would be radioactive and unstable...

although there are still a few gaps on the periodic table

there's no elements 113, 115 and 117...and 110, 111, 112, 114, 116 and 117 are all recently discovered....i think they still have temporary names although this might have changed by now

and i dont trust normal cabbage...never mind purple cabbage...

i fart enough

Does anyone remember the movie Evolution erroneously assigning organisms a nitrogen backbone as a comparison to Earth's carbon? It was presented in the movie as almost apodictic and it was one of those little things that bugged me. They even continued on the same path in the periodic table and ended up with selenium being uberly toxic to the foreign organisms based on fact that arsenic was toxic to carbon based life forms. (They did some sort of translation that got them...its been a few years I don't remember perfectly.)


Yes, all this current banter made me think of this movie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_biochemistry

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/06/noncarbon_lifef.html

no matter how educated the belief, its still a belief. no more valid imho than that of someone who believes in an invisible man who acts as creator/parental unit.

It is more valid (even slightly) on the grounds that we know what life consist off and we can use Earth as model, but still, we obviously don't know everything and there could be life (even non sentient) that is made of something we can't even imagine.

Originally posted by Robtard
It is more valid (even slightly) on the grounds that we know what life consist off and we can use Earth as model, but still, we obviously don't know everything and there could be life (even non sentient) that is made of something we can't even imagine.

however its illogical to many including myself for a non carbon based lifeform to exist. in fact my belief is that the pattern for evolution is universal. thats not to exclude humanly-evolved reptilians, mollusks, insects, etc (not to sound like deano).

Originally posted by Robtard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_biochemistry

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/06/noncarbon_lifef.html

That's interesting. Maybe my belief that nitrogen isn't as useful as carbon has become antiquated?

However:

"Debate continues, as several aspects of a phosphorus-nitrogen cycle biology would be energy deficient. Also, nitrogen and phosphorus are unlikely to occur in the ratios and quantity required in the real universe. Carbon, being preferentially formed during nuclear fusion, is more abundant and is more likely to end up in a preferred location."

I didn't know that carbon was preferentially produced during fusion (during the last legs of a star's life). I always assumed that it was variant in almost a linear fashion as the atomic weight become larger (up to iron). I guess I could google spectral analysis data from a left over star to see how valid that Wiki claim is...but I don't feel like it.

I didn't know that nitrogen became useful or as useful as carbon when coupled with phosphorus. Conceivably, we could run "evolution" models based on different elements as AI becomes stronger. With enough processing power, trillions of variables can be run in seconds so we could potentially run several models through and come up with some pretty nifty stuff. Computing power and AI is not advanced enough to start playing God "at home"*, though.

I've read that people are already running CG models of evolution in one form or another, so the interest is there. We may answer several questions as it pertains to life and elements.

*The Earth

Future of Mars Exploration: What's Next?

http://www.livescience.com/space/080604-tw-mars-next.html

Only poked around the article, but I assume colonization would be the ultimate goal and what were doing now is the ground work.

They believe there's a sheet of ice below the surface; that would explain the ice-crystals.

Phoenix's robotic arm has taken its second scoop out of Mars. The resulting trench reveals a splash of mysterious white material just below the topsoil. cocaine on mars! proof of life?

Put on your 3D glasses for an in-depth look at this stereo picture, borrowed from spaceweather.com.


http://www.spaceweather.com/swpod2008/06jun08/vantuyne1.jpg