Origin of Life on Mars? - Page 20

Previous 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20
Author Message
Barsoomer


Posts: 344

Reply: 381



PostPosted: August 4, 2018 10:34 PM 

Yes, thanks very much for the link. And it's good to see you back!

I agree wholeheartedly with the need for a sense of urgency in performing in-situ experiments to detect and confirm Martian life. It is a no-brainer that the Viking experiment should be repeated with more instrumentation (and should have been long ago). Spend whatever it takes to sterilize completely. (It is still only a small fraction of the mission cost.) Send a decent microscope!

However, I do expect it will be easy to distinguish Martian from Terran life once we can do DNA analysis on the organisms. I tend to believe life there will have a common ancestor with Earth life, but the long separation will have caused DNA sequences to diverge substantially.

LWS


Posts: xxx

Reply: 382



PostPosted: August 5, 2018 7:15 AM 

Barsoomer; I agree totally with your reply 381 above. If there is life on Mars DNA sequencing should be able to separate Martian from Terran organisms and even give some idea of the time frame in which Terran organisms reached Mars.

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 383



PostPosted: August 5, 2018 9:27 AM 

Regarding reply 381, "However, I do expect it will be easy to distinguish Martian from Terran life once we can do DNA analysis on the organisms."
Martian amino acids may also show difference from Earthly amino acids. Meteorite Murchison has many amino acids that are never found on Earth.

LWS


Posts: xxx

Reply: 384



PostPosted: August 5, 2018 3:38 PM 

Faceless re. your reply 382;
That is precisely the underlying point that Barsoomer was making in his 381.

Winston

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 385



PostPosted: August 7, 2018 8:23 AM 

Regarding reply 375, "Faceless has confused "belief," with "certainty." He has in effect seperated himself from reality."
No evidence, just mud throwing.
Regarding reply 371, "Your idea of ancient humans living 300 million years ago is already indisputable proven to be false."
No evidence, just mud throwing.

Joe Smith


Posts: xxx

Reply: 386



PostPosted: August 7, 2018 9:50 AM 

so then Faceless,, you are feeling prosecuted?... tell me,,,,(err,,,rrr,,no
I wont ask that one)

John Radogno


Posts: xxx

Reply: 387



PostPosted: August 7, 2018 10:22 AM 

Faceless,
The fossil record of human evolution is hard, real evidence; it is not "mud throwing." You are ignoring reality.

We also have solid evidence of your inability to see reality, such as the horizontal lines in columnar basalt (363). Most people who are interested in science are doing it because they are curious. You have a preconceived belief system that is not based on science or evidence instead.

The fact that you would call something artificial, with out doing a lick of research, as is the case with you and columnar basalt, is not just a very poor approach to science, it is willful ignorance.

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 388



PostPosted: August 7, 2018 10:29 AM 

I have 830 posts in my website:
http://wretchfossil.blogspot.com/
If 10% of my posts are correct, that would be enough to falsify many journal articles.

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 389



PostPosted: August 7, 2018 10:40 AM 

Reply 387, fake news.

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 390



PostPosted: August 7, 2018 11:01 AM 

Theory of evolution falsified:
[link]

John Radogno


Posts: xxx

Reply: 391



PostPosted: August 7, 2018 11:48 AM 

Faceless,
The Ed Conrad bones were found in a slag heap, basically trash heap, which typically also contains old broken tools and wagon wheels that are encrusted with coal dust that becomes rock-like in a few decades. His bones were not found in a coal mine. Coal dust has very strong cementing properties, which if you did any research you would know about. So, no, this does not falsify evolution.

BTW, I strongly doubt that even 10% of your Wretch Fossil posts are correct.

Darwin


Posts: xxx

Reply: 392



PostPosted: August 7, 2018 12:35 PM 

I have become spiritual. A christian to be specific. That said, WTF. The theory of evalution may be flawed, but everthing evolves. It seems so damned simple now. Creation never stops.

Everything is connected. What seems seperate is connected. The deep flower needs a bird with a lardge beack.

Darwin.

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 393



PostPosted: August 8, 2018 1:20 AM 

Reply 391, just speculation AGAIN. Many evolutionists have examined Ed Conrad's NUMEROUS fossils up-close. No one, except you, ever said they are recent bones. I am still in possession of the femur fossil. I cut it and groped it many times. Anyway, many photos in my article show it is not a recent bone, period. Your speculations cannot disprove any of my 830 posts on my website. Useless speculations when theories are a dozen a dime.

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 394



PostPosted: August 8, 2018 4:12 AM 

Elaborating on reply 393, the "evolutionists" include paleontologists from the Smithsonian Institute, Harvard University, Pennsylvania University, etc. Mr. Conrad had seen the experts eyeball to eyeball. All experts said the "fossils" are "rocks". One Pennsylvania policeman also saw many of Conrad's fossils. Do you think the policeman and all the experts had mistaken "modern, recent bones" for rocks?
My photo shows the interior of the femur bone has become rocks, just like most of Ed Conrad's fossils. Mr. Conrad sent me a bag of his "fossils". When I received them, I, like the experts, thought they were just rocks. One day I found a few filaments coming out of the "rocks". At that time, I had found red blood cell remains in a dinosaur bone. So, I placed the "rocks" under my stereomicroscope, and found numerous fossil cells. Fossil cells are invisible to naked eyes,period. At that time, almost no one knew fossil cells could be preserved. But experts still had no right to say Conrad's "fossils" are just "rocks" before they put the objects under microscope. By definition, fossils are all over 10, 000 years old, because it takes more than 10,000 years for rock minerals to petrify in a bone.

John Radogno


Posts: xxx

Reply: 395



PostPosted: August 9, 2018 1:57 AM 

Faceless,
Ha, nice try. Sorry, but it is just another example of you seeing what you want to see and not what is reality. Those bones were contaminated by the slag. They were not found in a coal mine, they were not found in a layer of sedimentary rock, they were found in a slag heap, which often contains broken pieces of mining tools and other objects thrown into the heap along with the ash and slag. There is no documentation to confirm it's original source, and as such it has no scientific value. I know you are just like Conrad, thinking the whole scientific community is in a conspiracy to hide the truth. Think about how unrealistic it is that there have been thousands of professional and amateur fossil hunters for several hundred years now, and nobody finds human bones in any actual coal mines or in any sedimentary rocks that are millions of years old., not even your buddy Conrad. Is everybody lying?

First of all, Conrad's claims are proven to be false because the fossil record of human evolution is very robust and real.

Second, the cementing properties of coal dust is very real and can lithify rather quickly into harden rock, which can cover all kinds of objects that might also be found in a slag heap (reply #391).

Third, The bone-like object cannot definitely be identified as human anyway.

And finally, you are notorious for for seeing things that don't exist and for not seeing things that do. You can't see the horizontal lines visible to everybody else in your own posting of columnar basalt images. You see blood cells on the corner of the American flag on the moon, which is off the charts crazy. I will not forget the time a pebble on the rover deck slid down a bit and being superstitious, you of course assumed a ghost did it and the plow lines were blood veins. That was when I posted this picture to help you understand (although I did ad a snarky remark about how large long can a blood vein stretch):

Weren't you embarrassed by your confusion?

John Radogno


Posts: xxx

Reply: 396



PostPosted: August 9, 2018 2:39 AM 

Faceless,
This is what you posted, with the green arrow pointing to what you are calling a blood vessel:

Are you going to still going to say these are blood vessels or for once can you just be a real person and say you were wrong? Every one else on this blog will admit they were wrong about something when they get more information or a better idea.

We are curious and want to know what is out there. We are even open to finding alien artifacts. But we want credible evidence, not fantasy and superstitions.

LWS


Posts: xxx

Reply: 397



PostPosted: August 11, 2018 11:27 PM 

Here's a gif animation of flows related to curi drilling a hole on sol 2136. Looks like curi caused some flows from nearby areas. The dark flows are easily distinguishable from the brownish drill debris.

https://photos.smugmug.com/Other/MSL-Curiosity/i-NdmfG27/0/4c1dac1c/XL/2135-36-curi%20flows%20gif-XL.gif

Winston

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 398



PostPosted: August 12, 2018 7:46 AM 

Martian ooids embedded in drill site Stoer:
[link]

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 399



PostPosted: August 12, 2018 7:54 AM 

Martian blood vessel remains found on Vera Rubin Ridge:
[link]

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 400



PostPosted: August 12, 2018 7:56 AM 

How to tell if a bone is modern or not:
[link]

Previous 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20


Join the conversation:















Very Happy Smile Sad Surprised
Shocked Confused Cool Laughing
Mad Razz Embarassed Crying or Very Sad
Evil or Very Mad Twisted Evil Rolling Eyes Wink
Powered by MTSmileys