Origin of Life on Mars? - Page 29

Previous 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 Next
Author Message
Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 561



PostPosted: January 6, 2019 3:12 AM 

Green ooids often contain modern photosynthetic bacteria. Green ooids are found all over Mars:
https://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message3953807/pg1

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 562



PostPosted: January 8, 2019 4:43 AM 

Regarding reply 561, "Also there are other minerals on Mars that are green. Olivine for example is very common on Mars."

Green minerals could not cause extremely low albedo at Larry's Outcrop. Long-dead green life could not, either. The extremely low albedo were probably caused by modern cyanobacteria living in the green ooids at Larry's Outcrop.

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 563



PostPosted: January 15, 2019 4:57 AM 

Prehistoric salt farms in Australia disprove human evolution:
[link]

John Radogno


Posts: xxx

Reply: 564



PostPosted: January 15, 2019 3:35 PM 

Re: #563
It is as impossible to disprove human evolution as it is to disprove that the world is round.

The pans, and loaves formations of tessellated rock are naturally made. The process that brings up the salt ridges further from the shore and the cracks between the loaves closer to the water is STILL HAPPENING TODAY, with no help from humans. You can't disprove something by using the one word sentence: Period.

This is as bad of an idea as the Crowley Lake pillars which are impossible to be made artificially.

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 565



PostPosted: January 15, 2019 11:04 PM 

Nature cannot form so many such rectangles in Australia alone:
[link]

John Radogno


Posts: xxx

Reply: 566



PostPosted: January 16, 2019 3:06 PM 

Faceless, you are just making stuff up. I searched your links for any evidence and found none. You say nature cannot make rectangles "period," but "period" is not evidence. And you are ignoring the huge amounts of evidence for nature making right angles, flat surfaces, etc.

And your Point 1. is a joke because you refer to the third paragraph of an ad by a non-science travel firm, The Middle Age Wanderer, which specifically says, "pressure caused cracks in the rocks," which if you were to read any geological journals on the subject, that is exactly what the scientists are saying.

This is the 4th time you posted evidence that proves yourself wrong!

The pavements are made of natural siltstone sediments that lithified in layers over a flat surface which is common all over the world. The cracks and the ridges have already been explained; the process can be seen as is it is still going on right now so it is somewhat idiotic to try and refute this with another whacky conspiracy theory.

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 567



PostPosted: January 17, 2019 2:39 AM 

John Radogno, regarding replies 564 and 566,
pathetic.
Ice is not rock. Ice is part of nature, but ice does not form rectangles as many as these:
[link]
[link]
Pathetic.

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 568



PostPosted: January 17, 2019 2:55 AM 

John Radogno, regarding reply 566, your photos have no descriptions. That is no evidence.
No one said the Tasmania pavements are ice. Why do you show a photo of ice? To prove you are right? Pathetic?
Your other two photos prove nothing.

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 569



PostPosted: January 17, 2019 3:06 AM 

John Radogno, evolutionists and you are making things up.
Regarding reply 564, your diagrams prove nothing about the many rectangles in Tasmania.

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 570



PostPosted: January 17, 2019 3:12 AM 

Regarding reply 564, hoax is happening today and everyday. Evolutionists cannot repent anyday.

John Radogno


Posts: xxx

Reply: 571



PostPosted: January 17, 2019 9:15 AM 

Faceless, you seam to be a bit upset.
Why ice? You said nature can't make rectangles and you say ice is nature... so, you are proven wrong that nature cannot make rectangles. I was going to also post pictures of animals and plants but the point is already made.
#564 is based on actual science, read the journals and get educated, there is nothing "made up" about it. You continually post geological images and make up claims about them in total disregard of science.
BTW, there is no such thing as "evolutionist." Evolution is not a dogma that is trying to convert peoples beliefs. Evolution is a fact of life.
Also, when you post your images, do you realize that what you are seeing is not what it looked like 60 million years ago?
Please take some classes in geology!

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 572



PostPosted: January 17, 2019 9:42 AM 

Ice is not rock. Ice often changes shapes. We are talking about prehistoric "tessellated pavements" with many rectangles. Your photo of ice does not show rectanglES. Pathetic player of words.
How do you know your photos in reply 566 contain natural rocks? Presumption?
Also, your photos in reply 566 do not show flat surfaces of rocks. Example:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fossil_lin/46723821202/in/dateposted-public/

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 573



PostPosted: January 17, 2019 12:24 PM 

Re reply 566, how do you know the ice was naturally formed rectangle?
No source for the image was provided. No context for the "rectangle" was provided.

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 574



PostPosted: January 17, 2019 11:02 PM 

Climate is changing on Earth and in Heaven.
Light is stronger than ever anywhere. Exposure is for the good of EVILutionists and mankind.

In "Tessellated Pavement" in Tasmania, there are long straight lines, large flat surfaces, small flat surfaces meeting in right angles, and many squares and rectangles. Evilutionists try to tear them up into pieces and dots. They hoax people and pretend not seeing ancient civilization on Earth (note 1), on Mars (note 2), modern and ancient life on Mars (note 3). Pretend and hoax no more.

Note 1: one of many examples: [link]

Note 2: one of many examples: [link]

Note 3: two of many examples: 1. [link]
2. [link]

John Radogno


Posts: 37

Reply: 575



PostPosted: January 17, 2019 11:54 PM 

Faceless, The ice image is from NASA. It is in the antarctic off the Larson C ice shelf To see the whole rectangle, you have to look at the video as the plane was flying overhead. It is a tabular iceberg which is very common, there are thousands of them, and a few happen to look like rectangles, squares, and other geometric shapes. Here is another almost rectangular iceberg:

To be fair, it is not perfect and should be called a trapezoid, but then also to be fair, as much as the tessellated pavements look like they are rectangular, if you individually measure each one you would be lucky to find a perfect square or rectangle. One thing that tabular icebergs have in common with sedimentary rocks, and dried mud flats, is that when they crack up, the breaks are predominantly vertical to the horizontal, which is why 90 degree angles are so common in geology. Gravity is a part of how this phenomenon happens.

Often, as the icebergs drift in the ocean, ice will form around them and give the appearance of the tabular iceberg sitting on top of a plane of ice.

The pictures in #566 I took myself. I don't know why you would ask to see the flat surfaces of these sedimentary rocks. We have gone through this before. You can see the edges of the rocks. Sedimentary rocks are formed on flat surfaces; they may later get shoved around but that is how they start. If you do not understand the basics of sedimentary layering, which is the most common used method for dating fossils, then you are truly the one who is pathetic.

As for #564, I did not post that image to prove anything, I did it only to help you understand some of the geological processes that are involved in the tessellated pavements. Your claims are proven false before you even make them. This is because you do not do any real research before you pull the trigger with some made-up belief. So you aways fail to address any real faults in the sciences because you do not know what the science is. It is not unusual to find faults in science, but you have to really know the science to know what the faults are. Take the Bishops Tuff columns for example, one of the stupidest things you ever claimed to be man-made. Do you know how volcanic clasts get compressed and how impossible it would be to artificially reproduce the material in the same position and orientation as what the volcano left behind? Do you know how the tuff is studied to determine altered versus unaltered ash material? Do you know what mordenite is and what the significance of that is?
I expect you don't because if you did you would not have made such a fool of yourself by making the impossible claim that you made. The best you could do was site an add by a travel agency (The Middle Age Wanderer), which is pretty shallow research to say the least (and the fourth time you proved yourself wrong by not actually reading the add which said that pressure caused the cracks).
Please read some science journals and get some facts before you go out on a limb with total nonsense.
Really, take some classes in geology!

Dana Johnson


Posts: 1195

Reply: 576



PostPosted: April 15, 2019 6:01 PM 

Thus far reproducing life is not successful. Constant attempts to build complex structures from the basics.

https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-reproduce-origins-of-life-on-ocean-floor/

https://scitechdaily.com/amino-acids-found-in-meteorites-that-experienced-high-temperatures/

https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-confirm-life-really-come-world/

None of these articles can deny the possibility that life was not bound to Earth, nor that the source of life was or is from a preassembled or working type of life upon it's prevalence on Earth.

John Radogno


Posts: 37

Reply: 577



PostPosted: April 17, 2019 11:59 AM 

The building blocks for life are abundant pretty much every where. The unique circumstances that would allow for molecular reproduction is what is rare. But out of the trillions of planets in the universe I would put my money on an life being out there.

Dana Johnson


Posts: 1195

Reply: 578



PostPosted: April 23, 2019 8:10 PM 

This is a structure which is both ordered and complex at visual scale. It apparently is related to the local rocks and ancient compacted soil mix in which the InSIGHT MOLE is stuck currently. This is very similar to other crater exposures across Mars along the equatorial zone at landing sites.
Does elaborate structure suggest life at this scale? This clearly appears to be a common component of the local soil, with small pieces seen in this weeks images.
We know that Earth life requires particular chemistry and molecular complexity far greater than what we can see with the unaided eye. Does this apparent ordering show the arrow leading to life's development, or is the occurrence of life not fitting the circumstances of this type of assembly process in these lander photos?
Is this simply geology and chemistry on Mars?
Any examples on Earth?

This image is issued in various altered frames on the 'InSIGHT Lander' discussion topic, page 2, as below.

[link] ?page=2&refresh=1#comment-1416010

Dana Johnson


Posts: 1195

Reply: 579



PostPosted: May 8, 2019 10:19 AM 

[link]

Dana Johnson


Posts: 1195

Reply: 580



PostPosted: May 8, 2019 5:23 PM 

I don't try to make an argument about the ooid shapes as they are too small for the cameras to show adequately, but they do seem to appear somewhat like Earth ooids, and the argument is great for a new rover to be equipped with a better resolution camera/microscope which might see the grains and contents of melted ices, even a robotic microscope we could use to find the various items on a path.
What a strange range of climate conditions.

If most of us agree there probably is life elsewhere it seems there is an open ended debate about where and what it would be.
Would there be any reason to suspect we would be not be advised by a source of information about another type of or location of the 'other' life? We have in the discussion the fact that we were advised of such a source of information, and it is included in the early spoken and written content to expect a contact. Not a bad estimation for a source which did not elaborate on science as such, but obedience to the 'greater' source of information.

The studies of science are showing not only that history can be real but also open ended.

I was looking at the releases for HiRISE imaging for May 1, 2019, and had difficulty viewing the iced over dunes on Mars in this color image. It may seem inappropriate to include it here, but the ice surfaces seem both disordered and well ordered, even structuring a secondary surface related to the basic 'ripples' and dune shaping present as particulates. Such a odd influence on particles and such an appearance of large scale, even possibly fine scale, ordering of the environment by CO2 and water ice. I added some saturation as this is a red and blue color display of information in addition to the routine dunes seen.

The studies related to the link at # 579 show we have an open book in regard to science, and if we can learn best by inbound information processes, are we not finding the best path to solutions in technical thinking, adding to the technical detailing which was not given to us inherently?

The 'cell' structures in the color information reminds me of the MRI images I have looked at of human interstitial tissues and other faint patterns. How real is this information?

Is the well ordered object in the InSIGHT shadows, reply # 578, a padding device for the legs, or is it a real Mars rock?

Daily discoveries of science are presented, claimed as 'new paths' for us, open ended in content.

Previous 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 Next


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