This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.

Welcome to Our Community

Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.

Will NASA Find Life On Mars?

Discussion in 'The Philosopher' started by FEZZILLA, Sep 3, 2018.

  1. FEZZILLA

    FEZZILLA Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    America
    Curious to see how many people here believe there is life on Mars? Will NASA created life on Mars? If so, how will NASA achieve this? After all, trillions of tax payer dollars will be needed for the Mars Project. Do you think its worth the money? How much faith do you have in evolution that would make your trust the overly expensive Mars Project?
    Mars.jpg
    Martian_surface_NASA1.jpg
     
  2. Slammed

    Slammed Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2017
    Messages:
    7,114
    Likes Received:
    9,222
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course there are little green men with three eyes and four arms sitting there wondering what the fuck those idiots on the other flat rock are doing looking to an imaginary man of enlightenment for all the answers.

    [​IMG]
     
    FEZZILLA likes this.
  3. CiG

    CiG Salute of the Jugger

    Joined:
    May 22, 2015
    Messages:
    27,204
    Likes Received:
    12,524
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Frogtown
    More likely they'll find evidence that there was life on Mars at some point.
     
  4. Slammed

    Slammed Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2017
    Messages:
    7,114
    Likes Received:
    9,222
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually BBC One found out there was Life On Mars twice.

    Life On Mars
     
  5. Bloopy

    Bloopy Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    1,053
    Likes Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Colonising Mars and developing new technology is what makes that kind of cost worthwhile. Actually trying to find the life if it does already exist there could require a lot of drilling and become harder to justify. So to look at the price tag from an evolution angle just doesn't make sense. Not everyone who goes to space needs to have the same views on evolution.
     
  6. FEZZILLA

    FEZZILLA Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    America
    How? How will they find life on Mars? So far they haven't find anything but a desolate wasteland. In fact, NASA has abandoned the terraform Mars project but were not honest with the publish about the reasons why. They said they don't currently have the technology to accomplish such a huge feat. But lets say they had the technology and a 100-trillion dollar budget to work with. Then what?
     
  7. FEZZILLA

    FEZZILLA Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    America
    I think its their view on evolution that deluded their thinking to begin with! Seriously, what scientist would even think Mars had life? Only an evolutionist who does not believe life is a miracle. They think that if life on earth died tomorrow it would evolve back into more complex forms of life. Since they do not seem to have an understand of what death is, they pursue unhealthy interests at tax payers expense.

    Here is a NASA article from back in 2000.
    https://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2000/00_68AR.html

    They actually believed it was possible. I remember my thoughts back then and I knew the outcome without being a scientist. And now, NASA claims terraforming Mars is impossible, but they claim its only because our current technology isn't advanced enough which suggest better technology could make it happen. So even in the face of defeat they cannot be honest with the public an admit their faith in evolution theory had miserably failed them.
    https://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2000/00_68AR.html

    So they found no life, no water or nothing. But wait, did I lie? NASA said they found liquid water flowing on today's Mars.
    https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-confirms-evidence-that-liquid-water-flows-on-today-s-mars

    I must be lying. But wait, its not water. Its dry ice and dry ice is not liquid water nor does dry ice melt. NASA lied! They still have not told the public the real reason why they abandoned the terraforming of Mars project. The reason reason is that evolution theory isn't true--not even if guided by NASA!
     
  8. CiG

    CiG Salute of the Jugger

    Joined:
    May 22, 2015
    Messages:
    27,204
    Likes Received:
    12,524
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Frogtown
    Because on Mars there are riverbeds which dried up hundreds of thousands of years ago. This would indicate that at some point there was some kind of life on Mars.

    Your babble about evolution is hilarious by the way.
     
  9. Bloopy

    Bloopy Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    1,053
    Likes Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Mars has both liquid water and geothermal energy beneath its surface. Potentially very good conditions for microbes to live in, just as microbes live several miles beneath Earth's surface/the ocean floor. Making this about evolution is ridiculous and irrelevant. It's beneficial to the human race to develop the technology to drill down into the Martian surface. Even if they only find inorganic compounds, it's not a waste at all to learn what is there.
     
  10. FEZZILLA

    FEZZILLA Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    America
    That is an assumption. But lets say there were river beds. There are no signs of life on Mars and no signs life ever existed on Mars. Mars may have indeed been a living planet at one time in the distant past. But today the planet is dead and it cannot be terraformed.
     
  11. FEZZILLA

    FEZZILLA Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    America
    There are no microbes on Mars. Even if there is water on Mars its not safe drinking water. There is no chance of reviving dead red. The planet is dead and no life exist anywhere on the planet. I know this for a fact.
     
  12. Slammed

    Slammed Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2017
    Messages:
    7,114
    Likes Received:
    9,222
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I like your optimism.
     
  13. Bloopy

    Bloopy Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    1,053
    Likes Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New Zealand
    We haven't even sent the rover with ground-penetrating radar to find aquifers yet, let alone drilled down and tested whether or not the water is drinkable. If by some dumb luck you're right and the water's not drinkable, it'll be because of excess mineral content. Guess which other planet we have vast experience on in terms of treating water to make it drinkable. You can probably hear my palm slapping my forehead from here!

    Careful with your wording now, Captain Facto...

    https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/meet-the-martians
     
  14. FEZZILLA

    FEZZILLA Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    America
    I'm gonna show you hard proof as to why no life can neither be found on Mars or ever be reintroduced to Mars. This is something NASA and other scientists should have known immediately.

    First off, the ice in the polar regions is dry ice and that does not melt. Well, dry ice can melt if the pressure is above 5.11 atmospheres. But NASA's plan was to warm up the planet with solar mirrors assuming the ice would melt that way and there would be lush rivers of flowing water and then microbes would spontaneously arise in the water and mosses would form on the land and the next thing you know there are trees. What NASA has suggested is that spontaneous generation is true.

    https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/spontaneous+generation

    https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/abiogenesis

    https://www.thefreedictionary.com/spontaneous+generation

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spontaneous generation

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abiogenesis#medicalDictionary

    https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/spontaneous-generation

    https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/abiogenesis

    dc87af595c171b4967d43736b347bd53--languages-theory.jpg

    So NASA wanted to attempt what DR.Louis Pasteur already proved cannot ever happen no matter how much time you give it. But this is by far not the biggest error NASA scientists made. There have been many claims made such as worms found on Mars and rushing water visibly seen on the planet's surface. Atheists have taunted Christians with all these rumors and now the truth is out and NASA has abandoned the idea of terraforming which is bizarre since they claimed Mars would be ready for habitation in our lifetime. They claim our current technology is not advanced enough to make it happen which implies that better technology would make it work. So even in defeat they can't be honest and admit to the public that it was basic science that NASA very clearly didn't know and how there is no way they can make life evolve on the planet.

    So what is the problem? Well what NASA does know is that there is no magnetic field on Mars. They also know there is not one active volcano on Mars. But did that stop them from talking about terraforming Mars for decades. But it should have. Basic science 101 teaches us that the core of our earth is the beating heart of our planet. This beating heart provides needed nutrients to the soil which makes plant life possible and worms in our soil possible. The volcanos on earth act akin to arteries and veins in the earth. Our mother earth gets her period every now and then which erupts all over and we get earth period all over the place. :eek: :tickled:
    photo-1-1484129341794.jpg
    Without the core of the earth we would all perish and die. The planet would not be able to sustain life and earth would be without a magnetic field. Though since our earth is alive, we are also alive. We live on a living planet.

    56fbc4eadd089570618b4a39-750-469.jpg

    Mars has no magnetic field and not one active volcano. This means the core of Mars is dead--inactive.
    100801097_8ad154677f_z.jpg
    Nothing can grow on Mars, not even if scientists were to provide nutrients to the soil on Mars and plant earth plants there. They would just end up dying. NASA can make an artificial magnetic field, place a protective dome around Mars and nothing is gonna change. There is no resurrecting dead red and you would think that these NASA scientists would have known this right from the start. But their fascination with the fantasy of evolution theory has blinded them into wasting tax payers money on an idea that was doomed from the start. The core of Mars is dead which means the planet is dead.

    But NASA scientists must not have a basic understanding of planetary science. Its like a NASA scientist is walking in the woods one day and sees a dead deer carcass. So he thinks he can revive it and decides to leave some food out for the dead deer so it can eat and awake from death. The next morning the NASA scientist sees that the deer is still dead and this time leaves fresh food and water out for the deer thinking it will eat and drink and come back to life. But the deer stays dead and there is no change in the deer's condition. But the NASA scientist is still not convinced and believes if given time, the dead deer will eventually eat and drink and come back to life. But the deer stays dead because it is dead.

    This NASA scientist sees Mars is dead and thinks he can leave food out for it and the planet will eat and revive itself.

    Evolution theory is useless as science.
     
    #14 FEZZILLA, Sep 7, 2018
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2018
  15. Bloopy

    Bloopy Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    1,053
    Likes Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New Zealand
  16. FEZZILLA

    FEZZILLA Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    America


    Your link says it comes from California. That itself says the information is false. Nothing coming out of the State of California is true since the state is run by radical socialists who make up all reports.

    Here is a NASA link which confirms its all dry ice and dry ice don't melt into water.
    https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/podcasting/dryice20130611.html


    A friend of mine just graduated from medical school not long ago. When she took micro-biology class the professor had to discredit evolution theory just so the students wouldn't kill patients out of ignorance and get Hospitals sued for malpractice. The professor proved to the class, atheists and all, that Pasteur's experiment proved that micro-organisms multiply in the air, giving only the appearance of spontaneous generation.
    The term "evolution" was really the only original thing Darwin came up with. It was just called "Spontaneous generation" in ancient times. Its the belief that life comes from non-life which is exactly what Pasteur proved could not ever happen. In medical school science is held to accountability. When science is held accountable then evolution theory is not true or taken seriously at all. Only in a course like sociology will evolution be taught as true. But its not taught as true in microbiology class in medical school. In fact, professors have to teach against the theory to avoid malpractice!
     
  17. Bloopy

    Bloopy Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    1,053
    Likes Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New Zealand
    That could be the worst post you've made yet. Probably best to save your links confirming nothing and logically flawed arguments for confounding Flat Earthers.
     
  18. FEZZILLA

    FEZZILLA Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    America
    California is a socialist country within a country. I'm not gonna listen to socialist propaganda coming from a state with the highest poverty rate in the country. I'd much rather just post a NASA link.

    There is no life on Mars because there is no means that the planet can produce nutrients without an active core. This means we can warm up the planet and place a dome around it and still no life. Nothing can grow on a dead planet. There are no nutrients in the soil because the core is dead. Nothing can survive without an active core. The fact that NASA does not have one active volcano is proof the planet will always been dead. So all this talk we hear about life on Mars or how we're gonna make Mars thrive with life again is all BS. NASA has abandoned the idea of terraforming Mars after all the talk about colonizing it in our lifetime.
     
  19. Slammed

    Slammed Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2017
    Messages:
    7,114
    Likes Received:
    9,222
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not convinced that the lack of active volcanoes at NASA is proof of anything to do with the topic at hand.
     
  20. Bloopy

    Bloopy Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    1,053
    Likes Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New Zealand
    The core and mantle of Mars isn't completely static. As I already said, there's geothermal energy there.

    https://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2003/mar/HP_news_03094.html
     

Share This Page