Another Fellow Claiming to Have Found Evidence of Life

[jt-3d]

Life is the simplest explanation that covers all the bases here. I'm convinced.

Life is not the simplest answer because to create life is not simple at all. Think about what it takes to make life at random, from nothing. No, that's not a simple explanation. I don't think there was ever life on Mars and I'm not convinced about water either.

I think most of what we're seeing is the result of the Martian sandstorms which sweep the planet for months at a time. Planet wide sandstorms never happen here and as a result, I don't think anybody includes them in the options but they do occur on Mars. What a cool planet though.

[Darwin442002]

Pete, it's more like parallel evolution than convergent, Higher Earth forms like dolphins are a poor example, they evolved from the same shrew like crittiers that eventually gave rise to humans. There may well be many organisms unknown to Earth but common on Mars..... How would we recognize THOSE ???...........Eye Zee, no one is denying that Earth Erosion processes can uncover huge numbers of concretions, but Martian winds are very thin, any rain must be very fine mists , the idea that such could do the same on Earth is highly unlikely..........Bad Apprentice, as I said, the Martian winds are very thin, less than 1% Earth air pressure, you're over estimating thier ability to erode & uncover anything. Life is not a random process, it is an ordered process, thus it can work very quickly to create complex identicle forms all at the same strata. The Amino acids that formed into DNA on Earth are common in Nebulea , Sedna is reported to be covered in rich red THOLIN, the same stuff. A little of this stuff falls in the right place, & life organizes virtually overnight on a geologic timescale. There is nothing remotely exotic about the idea of sea life on Mars. I admit this is controversial, but only because it contradicts much of what we have been told to believe, or much of what we have previously assumed about Mars. Time to shrug off that intellectual inertia. Pete made the wisest statement, "the jury is still out" & I personally think this debate may last as long as the evolution debate itself......... This IS the grand adventure, gentlemen !!! I'm enjoying it !!!

[Eye-Zee]

Eye Zee, no one is denying that Earth Erosion processes can uncover huge numbers of concretions, but Martian winds are very thin, any rain must be very fine mists , the idea that such could do the same on Earth is highly unlikely...

Time is all you need, and we have plenty of it. Terrestrial erosion takes place on the scales of hours to hundreds of millions of years. Even assuming you're starting from scratch with concretions in sediment or sedimentary rock, a few hundred million to a couple billion years ago, and no running water, and a pre-thinned atmosphere, even the current atmosphere of Mars can sandblast and ablate enough to flay off cm to meters of surface material and expose more resistant materials. It's just not an impossibility. Nor is it highly unlikely.

[Darwin442002]

OK, we can agree to disagree on the erosion problems. That leaves the radial patterning, the vast numbers of identical forms, the beak/anus features, the rows of pimples, the sorting of smaller spheres to lower areas ( which is the exact opposite of the case with Mouqui Marbles on Earth) & the overall uncanny resemblence to Earthly sea urchins for YOU to explain useing pure geologic formation methods. Take your time, You're gonna NEED it :lol:

[Eye-Zee]

OK, we can agree to disagree on the erosion problems. That leaves the radial patterning, the vast numbers of identical forms, the beak/anus features, the rows of pimples, the sorting of smaller spheres to lower areas ( which is the exact opposite of the case with Mouqui Marbles on Earth) & the overall uncanny resemblence to Earthly sea urchins for YOU to explain useing pure geologic formation methods. Take your time, You're gonna NEED it :lol:

If any of your morphological interpretations were at all convincing, I might need time. Frankly, after looking at quite a few of them, they are not.

[Darwin442002]

Obstinate denial is not a counter argument. You have thus folded like a bad poker hand. you failed to explain a geologic process to account for the numerous beak/anus features, failed to account for the rows of dimples, failed to account for the radial patterning, failed to account for the vast number of identical forms, FAILED in short, to make a valid case for concretion concept. It was a pleasure revealing you as an obstinate fool. :D .............................. NEXT !!!!!!!!!!

[ToSeek]

Obstinate denial is not a counter argument.

And obstinate insistence is no argument.

[Eye-Zee]

Obstinate denial is not a counter argument. You have thus folded like a bad poker hand. you failed to explain a geologic process to account for the numerous beak/anus features, failed to account for the rows of dimples, failed to account for the radial patterning, failed to account for the vast number of identical forms, FAILED in short, to make a valid case for concretion concept. It was a pleasure revealing you as an obstinate fool. :D .............................. NEXT !!!!!!!!!!

Ah, my first ad hominem. How sweet. Watch the FAQ, Darwin.

The formation of concretions is not a fundamentally strange process, and the fact that they are both imperfect (with dimples and bulges), and different from terrestrial examples comes as no surprise. The sheer number of them is interesting, and I'm curious as to the processes that make and reveal them on a large spatial scale.

Your site is an amusing fantasy Darwin, but I'm afraid that's all it is. It is also clear that no forward motion is possible on this thread. I'm done.

[Darwin442002]

It is NOT 'my site' but I at least have taken the time to read it all, to verify what Mr Shults says does not violate any established reasoning, to consider the matter with an open mind, & to search for valid counter arguments. (there are none) If you love the dead weight of intellectual inertia, you are free to do so, & thus join the ranks of those who held to the "Earth centered system", "Creationism", & the "Flat Earth on the back of a Turtle" concepts. I gave you an opportunity to offer a counter argument,( That is HARDLY obstinacy on my part ), you failed to offer any. You Lose............. I don't blame you for running away at this point.... But a balanced mind would admit to being logically & intuitively defeated .

[jt-3d]

Wow, you certaintly make a lot of assumptions, Darwin. The assumption that you know more than everyone else for example. Keep that up, it's certaintly convincing me.

[Darwin442002]

Uh, not for nothing.......... But just when did YOU assume I made such a statement that I know more than anyone else ????? I simply stated more in favor of Mr Shults's conclusions that anyone can state against his conclusions. Again, I offer YOU the chance to explain the evidense by purely gelogical means. If you AGAIN fail to do so, that does not reflect poorly on ME ! What kinda child's game are you playing here ? The kind where you find yourself in checkmate, & so you flip over the board , rather than admit you've lost ?

[jt-3d]

Sorry, lost what exactly? You say you agree with some site (which you don't seemed to have linked us to as yet), I and other say we don't. What exactly have you won and why do you want us to talk you out of believing the site? If you don't want to believe it, don't believe it.

Here's a question for you. I assume this is what you are going on about even though you say it's not the image you are talking about. Here's a NASA image. Here's a page with that image you are not talking about. Note that the rock you fellers are all excited about having fronds or something in it. Now why does the guy with the web page use a blurry version of that rock when the rock in the NASA shot is the same size? Is this some sort of 'enhancement' to get us to see those trees that grow in rocks or what? Why choose blurry over sharp? Odd, no?

[Darwin442002]

You obviously haven't been paying attention. So scroll up right now & read the posts where I have given all skeptics THREE opportunities to offer valid counterarguments to Mr Schults's conclusions. If you have such counterarguments, make them. If you have no counterarguments, pick up a book or two on geology & try to FIND some. LOL ......If you can't find any valid counterarguments, then either admit Mr Shults is correct, or fall silent. Mr Shults maintained for months that many of the Martian rocks were sedimentary.......... Finally, NASA scientists admitted this WAS the case. .......Mr Shults maintained for months that liquid water was present on Mars............... Finally, just a few days ago, NASA admitted that this too, was indeed the case . I guess the guys at NASA are serious scientists, Like Mr Shults is a serious scientist........ Whereas you are NOT to be taken seriously....... Because you do not practice the scientific method. What are you doing here ?

[ToSeek]

Uh, not for nothing.......... But just when did YOU assume I made such a statement that I know more than anyone else ????? I simply stated more in favor of Mr Shults's conclusions that anyone can state against his conclusions. Again, I offer YOU the chance to explain the evidense by purely gelogical means. If you AGAIN fail to do so, that does not reflect poorly on ME ! What kinda child's game are you playing here ? The kind where you find yourself in checkmate, & so you flip over the board , rather than admit you've lost ?

You seem to misunderstand how science works. You need to come up with an explanation that is sufficiently convincing to persuade us. That we cannot immediately provide an alternate explanation is not conclusive evidence that you are correct.

I have perused the website and do not see any "smoking gun" evidence for life. However, nor did I see what you previously claimed:

4 Spherules have been ground down by the RAT to show cross section, all are on the site, all 4 show 5 pointed star geometry inside, not easy to spot, but once you see the 1st, & know what you are looking for, the other 3 really leap out at you.

I would be very interested in being pointed to these examples rather than having to search through a not terribly well organized website.

[jt-3d]

Wow, I looked at some more stuff. I have to ask, can you really look at this page and tell me you see what our boy says?

This is very clearly a common type of sea urchin.

Again, the original clearly shows a rock.

If you prefer to believe this guy over us fine with me but I sure don't see any sea urchin. Wow, just wow.

[Darwin442002]

Mr Shults has shown you the light. I have reflected that light. you have refused to see the light. Perhaps you new a new or bigger monitor to see the evidense, or perhaps you need glasses. I will give you one thing.......... When you flib over the board in a viloent childish trirade..... It is cetainly A Voilent TIRADE !!!!!!! I have no more time to waste by casting such pearls before such swine .

[jt-3d]

Mr Shults has shown you the light. I have reflected that light. you have refused to see the light. Perhaps you new a new or bigger monitor to see the evidense, or perhaps you need glasses. I will give you one thing.......... When you flib over the board in a viloent childish trirade..... It is cetainly A Voilent TIRADE !!!!!!! I have no more time to waste by casting such pearls before such swine .

Thanks for that eloquent prose. Mr. Shults has show me blurry rocks and drew lines on said blurry rocks. I'd hardly call that 'light'. Oh well, I guess I'm just a dullard. Thanks for trying to save me from ignorance.

[Darwin442002]

As a serious scientist myself, (Robotocist) sharing enlightenment is what I do. Sorry it went over your head. No hard feelings little guy ? :roll:

[Musashi]

Wow, I looked at some more stuff. I have to ask, can you really look at this page and tell me you see what our boy says?

This is very clearly a common type of sea urchin.

Again, the original clearly shows a rock.

If you prefer to believe this guy over us fine with me but I sure don't see any sea urchin. Wow, just wow.

A sea urchin? Darwin, care to explain that?

[ToSeek]

Mr Shults has shown you the light. I have reflected that light. you have refused to see the light. Perhaps you new a new or bigger monitor to see the evidense, or perhaps you need glasses. I will give you one thing.......... When you flib over the board in a viloent childish trirade..... It is cetainly A Voilent TIRADE !!!!!!! I have no more time to waste by casting such pearls before such swine .

Why don't you just say, "Is so! Is so! Is so!" and save lots of extraneous (and bannable) verbage?

[Musashi]

Because ToSeek, how else could he prove to himself that he is so superior to all of us?

[Daffy]

Because ToSeek, how else could he prove to himself that he is so superior to all of us?

Hi, all,

An an outsider looking in, I am a bit confused. Reading through this thread, there seems to be no convincing geological (areological?) explanation for these "patterns." Right? So why is it so completely out of the question that they could be fossils?

I am not saying that's what they are...I just don't get why it is so impossible.

[jt-3d]

For myself, I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm just saying that blurring pictures and then drawing lines on them is not any kind of proof.

I'm no geologist but look at the original image. See that rock, down and right of center. It's still intact but you can see signs of some kind of internal structuring on the outside. The rocks (it's just easier to call them that) appear to have different densities throughout so when one gets cracked open, you get a kind of pattern.

What causes that, I don't know. It almost looks like impact damage. It does not look like a fossil to me.

-edit- fixed my link.

[Daffy]

For myself, I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm just saying that blurring pictures and then drawing lines on them is not any kind of proof.

I'm no geologist but look at the original image. See that rock, down and right of center. It's still intact but you can see signs of some kind of internal structuring on the outside. The rocks (it's just easier to call them that) appear to have different densities throughout so when one gets cracked open, you get a kind of pattern.

What causes that, I don't know. It almost looks like impact damage. It does not look like a fossil to me.

What interests me a bit is that the pattern seems to be repeated in more than one rock. I am not saying it is convincing evidence for life...merely suggestive. And that I can't think of a convincing explanantion for the pattern being repeated; but then I am not a geologist.

[ToSeek]

Because ToSeek, how else could he prove to himself that he is so superior to all of us?

Hi, all,

An an outsider looking in, I am a bit confused. Reading through this thread, there seems to be no convincing geological (areological?) explanation for these "patterns." Right? So why is it so completely out of the question that they could be fossils?

I am not saying that's what they are...I just don't get why it is so impossible.

It's not impossible, but the arguments being expressed are hardly convincing, particularly for what has to be considered an "extraordinary claim."

[jt-3d]

All I know is if I could get me a probe up there a scoop up a ton or so of those things and bring them back, I could make a fortune selling them. Maybe I'm part Ferengi.

[Daffy]

All I know is if I could get me a probe up there a scoop up a ton or so of those things and bring them back, I could make a fortune selling them. Maybe I'm part Ferengi.

LOL!

[Squink]

I'm no geologist but look at the original image. See that rock, down and right of center.

-edit- fixed my link.

There are NO ROCKS in that San Antonio RADAR loop.

[The Bad Astronomer]

When you flib over the board in a viloent childish trirade..... It is cetainly A Voilent TIRADE !!!!!!! I have no more time to waste by casting such pearls before such swine .

I was going to give a warning for the "fools" comment on Page 2, but now I see no need.

Banned. And, like all the other pareidolia threads with nothing but tissue-thin evidence, locked.