back to article ALIEN fossils ON MARS: Curiosity snaps evidence of life

Photographs of rocks taken by NASA's Curiosity rover may confirm that life as we know it once existed on Mars. The pictures were shot at the Gillespie Lake outcrop in Yellowknife Bay, which used to be a huge lake back when Mars had surface water. Dr Nora Noffke, who has spent 20 years studying fossils of early microbes, said …

  1. Conundrum1885

    Its possible

    Seem to recall reading that Mars could have had liquid water for >200M years so fossils of microbes are quite feasible.

    With the loss of the magnetic dynamo the atmosphere was eroded away so this would preserve things nicely.

    1. Dave 126 Silver badge

      Re: Its possible

      Puzzled as to why the above comment was downvoted.

      1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

        Re: Its possible

        If the Universe is only some 6,000 years old, any talk in terms of millions of years is a heretical nonsense!

      2. Stevie

        Re: Puzzled as to why downvoted

        Probably because anyone should be able to figure out that all the signs of such sea bed life would have been ground to dust under the keels of Martian sandships millennia ago.

        1. JeffyPoooh
          Pint

          Re: Puzzled as to why downvoted

          "...all the signs of such sea bed life would have been ground to dust..."

          That's why this small section has been re-exposed. Maybe.

          (In other words, your attempted point is rubbish.)

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Puzzled as to why downvoted

            Clearly these fossils have been placed on Mars by <insert you favourite all powerful sky fairy here> to prove he/she/they/it exists.

            Any evidence or contradictions are just further evidence of said <insert you favourite all powerful sky fairy here>.

            This topic is now as closed as my mind. The end.

          2. Stevie

            Re: In other words,

            Not a Ray Bradbury fan then, JeffyPoooh?

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Unconvincing hype

    The same exact hype as in 1999 when a bacterial "fossil" was identified inside a Mars meteorite. The hype was later debunked.

    Taking pictures of things which look somewhat similar and then extrapolating that visual similarity to an assertion of identical cause or origin is not science.

    1. Greg J Preece

      Re: Unconvincing hype

      Carefully comparing known factors to presented evidence isn't science?

      I've got science on the phone, they want a word.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Unconvincing hype

        > Carefully comparing known factors to presented evidence isn't science?

        They are not doing that.

        They are comparing PHOTOGRAPHS of things which look similar IN PHOTOGRAPHS.

        1. Grikath

          Re: Unconvincing hype @ ST

          So comparing photographs is Bad Science?

          If you've actually read the whole paper, it's a bit more than the couple of shots shown in the article. The lady in question has a very valid point, because the structures in the martian photo's are exactly what paleo-sector scientists are looking for here on earth if they want to find Interesting Things. If you find the same structures on Mars, you really want to determine whether or not you've found the Golden Grail.

          This is not some little green men work , the organisms that cause these structures to appear on earth are the most likely candidate to have had cousins on our red neighbour, and they have been around here on earth since both planets were wet enough to support them. Mars' geological evolution may have been different to earth, but the comparisons are between rocks of a similar age, when conditions, according to all data found so far, were similar. ( Which includes the point that the environment then would be lethal to any current lifeform, except the cyanobacteria mentioned in the paper...)

          This comparison shows that there's most definitely something to look out for when driving the Rovers around, and almost rates a "hold on chaps, let's turn back and have a real good look at that place." maneuver.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Unconvincing hype @ ST

            > So comparing photographs is Bad Science?

            In this particular case it's not Bad Science, it's just Not Science.

            Just because some mud bumps on Mars look somewhat similar in a photograph to some other photograph of some mud bumps on Earth, that does not imply that:

            - there is only one way these bumps could have been created - namely bacteria

            - the mud bumps on Mars were created by the same exact process as the mud bumps on Earth

            There is, thus far, zero direct evidence that life - as we understand it on Earth - has ever existed on Mars. Or that something similar to a metabolic process associated with life on Earth has ever existed on Mars. The mere presence of somewhat complex carbohydrates is not proof of life, or of a metabolic process related to what we understand as "life" on Earth. Complex carbohydrates are known to exist in Deep Space, where life is known to be impossible.

            No evidence has been presented that the mud bumps on Mars show any trace of complex carbohydrates.

            Had there existed some unrelated, independent, verified and unambiguous evidence that life had existed, at some point, on Mars, the inference of the Martian mud bumps and bacteria could have had some plausibility. But there is no such evidence.

            By the same exact logic of "it looks almost identical in a photograph" I can provide photographic evidence that Dinosaurs exist today in Scotland:

            http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--I4MvM6e7--/lsplsbmbw4ny93mwqzks.jpg

            That's a Scottish Plesiosaurus because it looks similar to the Plesiosaurus fossil at the British National History Museum:

            http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/galleries/green-zone/fossil-marine-reptiles/

            1. Queasy Rider

              Complex carbohydrates are known to exist in Deep Space, where life is known to be impossible

              Oh really? Prove it.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Complex carbohydrates are known to exist in Deep Space, where life is known to be impossible

                > Oh really? Prove it.

                http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/cen-v047n014.p011

                A little known fact since 1969. You must have missed the memo.

                1. Simon Watson

                  Re: Complex carbohydrates are known to exist in Deep Space, where life is known to be impossible

                  I don't think you can classify Formaldehyde as a complex carbohydrate. But the point is you asserted that life is known to be impossible in space. The aforementioned paper doesn't cover that.

            2. julianh72

              Re: Unconvincing hype @ ST

              Perhaps you should at least peruse the paper before decrying it as bunkum. The author absolutely does NOT make any claims that:

              "- there is only one way these bumps could have been created - namely bacteria

              - the mud bumps on Mars were created by the same exact process as the mud bumps on Earth"

              What she DID say is as follows (taken from the abstract):

              "In this paper, the similarities of the macroscopic morphologies, spatial associations, and temporal succession of sedimentary structures on Mars to MISS preserved on Earth has led to the following hypothesis: The sedimentary structures in the <3.7 Ga Gillespie Lake Member on Mars are ancient MISS produced by interactions between microbial mats and their environment. Proposed here is a strategy for detecting, identifying, confirming, and differentiating possible MISS during current and future Mars missions."

              Notice anything about that last sentence?

              "... a strategy for detecting, identifying, confirming, and differentiating ..."

              That's called Science!

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Unconvincing hype @ ST

                > That's called Science!

                No. It's called a Hypothesis. And as a Hypothesis, it is just as scientifically valid as the Creationist Hypothesis - choose your favorite ${DEITY} - or the Flying Spaghetti Monster Hypothesis.

                1. Filippo Silver badge

                  Re: Unconvincing hype @ ST

                  Uh, no. The lady is proposing a *testable* hypothesis. That's what makes it science. Unless you believe that something is not science until it's been established as fact, in which case ... I don't even know where to begin explaining why you're wrong.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: Unconvincing hype @ ST

                    > The lady is proposing a *testable* hypothesis.

                    1. Is it testable?

                    2. Actualy, yes. For something to have been scientifically proven, you need

                    - proof that the assertion is true

                    - a repeatable experiment supporting the proof

                    - acceptance of the proof and of the repeatable experimental results by the wider scientific community - also known as "peer review"

                    Unless these three requirements have been met, it's not science. It's something which can be classified anywhere from superstition to opinion to hypothesis. In this particular case, merely asserting that something must be true because photographs of different things appear to indicate a similarity between them does not make it true, let alone a proven scientific fact.

                    Perhaps Wikipedia - for lack of a better source:

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

                    can clarify some of your own confusion as to what "Science" and "Scientific proof" actually mean. One of the most relevant paragraphs is the one quoting Richard Feynman.

                    1. Dr. Mouse

                      Re: Unconvincing hype @ ST

                      "In this particular case, merely asserting that something must be true because photographs of different things appear to indicate a similarity between them does not make it true, let alone a proven scientific fact."

                      Which is exactly what she is NOT doing.

                      In the scientific method, you come up with a hypothesis, design some method of testing the hypothesis, do said test, and analyse the results to see if it matches. Here, she has done the first 2.

                      Let's take a simple one I remember from an early school experiment. The teacher suggested the hypothesis, showing anecdotal evidence (very often the basis for any hypothesis), that sugar dissolves more quickly in warmer water. We designed an experiment, involving heating water to different temperatures, adding equal amounts of sugar, and seeing how long it took to dissolve. We then analysed the results, and concluded that they supported the original hypothesis: Sugar does disolve more quickly in warmer water.

                      In this case, she has suggested a hypothesis (microbial life existed on Mars) based on anecdotal evidence (the pictures look remarkably similar to pictures of earth structures created by microbial life). She has suggested methods to test this hypothesis. Now, NASA need to carry out those experiments to determine whether they support her hypothesis.

                      Sounds like science to me.

                      1. Anonymous Coward
                        Anonymous Coward

                        Re: Unconvincing hype @ ST

                        > [ ... ] anecdotal evidence [ ... ] that sugar dissolves more quickly in warmer water. [ ... ]

                        Your school experiment did not PROVE that sugar dissolves more quickly in warm water. Your school experiment was an empirical direct observation of a phenomenon.

                        In order to prove that sugar dissolves more quickly in warm water than in colder water you need to provide an explanation as to why that would be, or is. Only after you have provided this explanation you can claim that you have proof that sugar dissolves faster in warmer water than in colder water.

                        That explanation would be "because the motion of water molecules increases with temperature. As a direct result, the number of collisions between water molecules and sugar crystals increases. As a direct result of this higher water molecule <-> sugar crystal collision rate, a higher number of sugar molecules get broken off their crystalline structure. Therefore, the same exact X amount of sugar will dissolve faster in the same exact Y amount of warm water than in the same exact Y amount of cold water".

                        1. Dr. Mouse

                          Re: Unconvincing hype @ ST

                          Your school experiment did not PROVE that sugar dissolves more quickly in warm water. Your school experiment was an empirical direct observation of a phenomenon.

                          True, that experiment did not prove it. However, it was a demonstration of part of the scientific process. Postulate a hypothesis, determine how to test it, test it, analyse results, repeat. This may involve adding more detail to the hypothesis until it turns into a theory (with details of why), and eventually you prove or disprove it.

                          Science is all of the above. Without one part, you will not get to the next. The author of this paper has followed the first 2 parts, the rest still needs completing, but it is still science.

                          1. Anonymous Coward
                            Anonymous Coward

                            Re: Unconvincing hype @ ST

                            > Science is all of the above. Without one part, you will not get to the next. The author of this paper has followed the first 2 parts, the rest still needs completing, but it is still science.

                            I think ST's confusion is that he/she is assuming that the paper is presented as a complete process.

                            The paper is merely hypothetical speculation with some additional observations to justify it and is presented as nothing other.

                            Those observations are not presented by the paper as substantial evidence for believing the veracity of that speculation and I think ST believes that they are which I personally think is unreasonable.

                            This is not a sensationalist paper claiming to have discovered anything substantial. It merely points out some observations regarding some possible interesting surface detail and that we should go have a more detailed look.

                    2. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: Unconvincing hype @ ST

                      > Unless these three requirements have been met, it's not science

                      You seem to be confused about something.

                      Science is not a body of well proven facts. That's called "knowledge".

                      If it were not so, then only librarians could be truly called scientists.

                      Science is a process, a very well defined process.

                      It involves

                      1) Observation,

                      2) the formation of hypotheses,

                      3) the derivation of testable, novel predictions based on those hypotheses and

                      4) a reliable, repeatable test capable of proving them.

                      I don't understand why you think that this paper is not science since it covers 1-3 and proposes the execution of 4.

                      1. Anonymous Coward
                        Anonymous Coward

                        Re: Unconvincing hype @ ST

                        > Science is not a body of well proven facts.

                        Yes, it is. Also, the use of "well" in this sentence is redundant. There are no possible qualifications on a proof: proof either exists, or it does not.

                        Webster's definition of "knowledge":

                        - information, understanding, or skill that you get from experience or education

                        - awareness of something : the state of being aware of something

                        Webster's definition of "science":

                        - knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation

                        - a particular area of scientific study (such as biology, physics, or chemistry) : a particular branch of science

                        - a subject that is formally studied in a college, university, etc.

                        Science implies knowledge. Knowledge does not imply science. Knowledge is an importand subset of Science but the two are not interchangeable, or equal.

                        > If it were not so, then only librarians could be truly called scientists.

                        Because librarians have, by definition, read all the books in the library where they work? Or is it because just by virtue of being a librarian, the same exact person is also a chemist, biologist, physicist, mathematician or astronomer?

                        > Science is a process, a very well defined process.

                        That process is called "scientific discovery". Scientific discovery is part of the scientific process. Neither of these form, in and by themselves, "science". Science also contains the explanation of the observed phenomena, with associated proof of the explanation and the necessary repeatable experiments.

                        > I don't understand why you think that this paper is not science since it covers 1-3 and proposes the execution of 4.

                        Because:

                        - it does not cover [1]. It covers the visual similarity of the appearance of Martian mud bumps to Earth mud bumps. Looking at photographs of things is not direct observation of things. It is only the direct observation of photographs of things. You could look at telescope photographs of the sky and confuse a galaxy for a star, or vice-versa, for example. Or a star for a planet. These types of photographic mis-interpretations have happened in the past, and they continues to happen today, even with Martian photographs sent by the rover.

                        - The paper offers its own hypothesis as proof of itself:

                        -- bacteria existed on Mars - purely hypothetical, no proof that this is true. There is no proof that life has ever existed on Mars. OK, I'll relax the constraint: there is no plausible indication that life has ever existed on Mars.

                        -- there are mud bumps on Mars - possibly true but not proven by direct observation. Direct observation of a photograph of something is not the equivalent of direct observation of something.

                        -- the Martian bacteria formed the mud bumps on Mars - purely speculative, no proof that this is true, and no indication that this assertion could possibly be true.

                        -- bacteria exist on Earth - true but irrelevant to Mars, because Earth is not Mars.

                        -- there are mud bumps on Earth - true but irrelevant to Mars, for the same reason.

                        -- Earth bacteria formed the mud bumps on Earth -- true, but incomplete. Bacteria is not the only possible cause or origin of mud bumps on Earth. Also irrelevant to Mars, because, again, Earth is not Mars.

                        -- therefore bacteria existed on Mars and formed the Martian mud bumps - no direct logical connection to any of the previous assertions. Just re-statements of the initial hypothetical assertions, presented as a logical conclusion.

                        1. Anonymous Coward
                          Anonymous Coward

                          Re: Unconvincing hype @ ST

                          > Yes, it is. Also, the use of "well" in this sentence is redundant. There are no possible qualifications on a proof: proof either exists, or it does not.

                          I assume you mean evidence. No evidence is absolute. Evidence has weight. Just because there is evidence doesn't necessarily mean that something is proven. There can be evidence *for* something that is patently false.

                          1. Anonymous Coward
                            Anonymous Coward

                            Re: Unconvincing hype @ ST

                            > I assume you mean evidence.

                            No, I mean proof. There is a fundamental difference between proof and evidence.

                            1. Anonymous Coward
                              Anonymous Coward

                              Re: Unconvincing hype @ ST

                              > No, I mean proof. There is a fundamental difference between proof and evidence.

                              The word proof means to "test".

                              Unfortunately, in ordinary language people have conflated the meanings of evidence and proof.

                              What most people mean by proof is evidence.

                              Proof can be taken to mean sufficient evidence to establish a hypothesis as scientific fact.

                              However, what level of evidence required to attain proof is entirely subjective.

                              In either case, "proof" is merely sufficient evidence.

                              1. Anonymous Coward
                                Anonymous Coward

                                Re: Unconvincing hype @ ST

                                > The word proof means to "test".

                                Further, even in formal mathematical methods where people are very careful about the meanings of words, a "mathematic proof" is merely a formal test. It is not, in of itself, evidence.

                                The application and subsequent verification of the proof (or test) is, however, evidence.

                        2. Anonymous Coward
                          Anonymous Coward

                          Re: Unconvincing hype @ ST

                          > - The paper offers its own hypothesis as proof of itself:

                          > -- bacteria existed on Mars - purely hypothetical, no proof that this is true. There is no proof that life has ever existed on Mars. OK, I'll relax the constraint: there is no plausible indication that life has ever existed on Mars.

                          The paper does not seem to make that claim. There is certainly no reason to suppose that bacteria *doesn't* exist on Mars, which is not the same thing.

                          > -- there are mud bumps on Mars - possibly true but not proven by direct observation. Direct observation of a photograph of something is not the equivalent of direct observation of something.

                          The photographs are of very good quality. However, that they are photographs and not direct observation should be taken into account when evaluating the hypothesis. In either case, the truth will be determined by experimental verification. The "strength" of the initial hypothesis will have no bearing on the subsequent experimental evidence devised to test it in the same way that we don't believe something just because the assertion is made by an authority.

                          > -- the Martian bacteria formed the mud bumps on Mars - purely speculative, no proof that this is true, and no indication that this assertion could possibly be true.

                          The paper is very specific that this is speculation from parallels drawn from our experience on earth. I'm a bit confused by your assertion that there is "no indication that this assertion could possibly be true". The whole point of the paper is that it could be possible. Whether or not it turns out to be true depends entirely on what happens from here on.

                          Again: " no proof that this is true": that's because it is speculation. That's how hypotheses are drawn up. You seem to be predetermining the veracity of the hypothesis before it has even been tested. If everybody only hypothesised something that was intuitive or reasonably safe to assume up front, we would never have made any novel discoveries.

                          > -- therefore bacteria existed on Mars and formed the Martian mud bumps - no direct logical connection to any of the previous assertions. Just re-statements of the initial hypothetical assertions, presented as a logical conclusion.

                          Again, the paper very deliberately does not state this. It postulates it as a possibility and makes no assertion as to the likelihood of it. That is entirely from your own imagination.

                          The problem that you seem to have with this paper is that you intuitively think that the hypothesis is bunk. The paper is cautious and presented by someone who has enough experience in the field to know what she is talking about. Despite that, the paper goes to some length to stress that far more evidence is required.

                          All hypotheses are generated from observation, imagination and experience. Without it we cannot move forward. Some hypotheses turn out to be right, some wrong. That's why we have the scientific method, to guide us on the right path.

                          Regardless of what you think about the basis of the paper's assertions, the scientific method will determine the truth.

            3. ravenviz Silver badge
              Coat

              Re: Unconvincing hype @ ST

              There's not nessie-ssarily plesiosaurs in Scotland just because some has a photo of one!

          2. P. Lee

            Re: Unconvincing hype @ ST

            > So comparing photographs is Bad Science?

            No, its click-bait, for the scientist in question and el reg.

        2. JeffyPoooh
          Pint

          Re: Unconvincing hype

          Martian Face.

          Canals on Mars.

          ...Many more examples.

          Not a great track record.

          There's a journal called 'Astrobiology'? Like, wow.

      2. Sirius Lee

        Re: Unconvincing hype

        Well have them call me. Bad science is what you do when you look for explanations that fit your hypothesis. In this case the hypothesis is that that the the structures might have organic genesis. Good science is when you look for other, simpler, more rational explanations for the same phenomena. If there is even one simple explanation, it is likely to be more relevant. Where are the comparisons of structures here on earth that have a similar morphology but are known to not have an organic genesis. That is science. That's known as Occam's razor. Maybe scientific method is no longer taught at US universities. Bumbling about spending billions justifying sending a craft to Mars by comparing pictures that confirm a bias is not science.

        1. Dr. Mouse

          Re: Unconvincing hype

          "Bumbling about spending billions justifying sending a craft to Mars by comparing pictures that confirm a bias is not science."

          Again, that is not what is happening.

          She has postulated a hypothesis. This is one, possible explanation.

          What you are suggesting is saying "it was probably just erosion, so it's not worth looking". That is not science.

          She has suggested her hypothesis and outlined how to test it. There is no bias in it. The tests can be run by the craft which is already there, which will provide data which could support or contradict her hypothesis. This is science.

          Occam's razor is a good starting point, but is not the be-all-and-end-all. You cannot hear hoof beats and immediately say "it is definitely a horse". There is a possibility of a zebra, so looking at what is there is a good plan. If you see a horse, great. If you see a zebra, also great. You are no longer guessing.

    2. julianh72

      Re: Unconvincing hype

      That debate is far from closed!

      E.g. "Mars Meteorite with Odd 'Tunnels' & 'Spheres' Revives Debate Over Ancient Martian Life"

      By Megan Gannon, News Editor | February 28, 2014 01:00am ET

      http://www.space.com/24834-strange-mars-meteorite-life-evidence-debate.html

  3. Camilla Smythe

    FOOKING BIG ALIEN LEG AT THE BOTTOM LEFT

    Just in case you did not notice.

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      Re: FOOKING BIG ALIEN LEG AT THE BOTTOM LEFT

      It's just a shrimp.

  4. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    Looks like one of the two Turin Shrouds

    ...luckily without Jesus.

    Bacterial mats on my dead planet? Its more likely than you think!

  5. MrDamage Silver badge

    Little Green Men

    We all knew little green men came from Mars. We just didnt realise how little until now.

    Douglas Adams was right. Their invasion fleet must have been eaten by a small dog.

  6. chris24j

    I love the scientific 'bent' here . . .

    It's nice to see the correct attitude and terminology. She doesn't claim what she's observed to be 'fact' or even 'theory' (which if robust and reliable is akin to fact), but actually wants others to test her hypothesis. Other explorers and incoming (space) data analysts would do well to follow her lead when they see (or think they've seen) something groundbreaking.

    1. Tom 7 Silver badge

      Re: I love the scientific 'bent' here . . .

      "Other explorers and incoming (space) data analysts would do well to follow her lead when they see (or think they've seen) something groundbreaking."

      All I can add is these buggers from NASA are just not paying attention - or letting their imaginations run riot enuf.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Natural causes ?

    Have natural causes been eliminated ? ISTR a Time Team where an archaeologist warned that certain natural glaciation patterns could be misinterpreted as human formed ?

    1. julianh72

      Re: Natural causes ?

      If you check the actual article http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/ast.2014.1218 , she hasn't actually claimed that she has found compelling evidence for life on Mars. She has published a "Hypothesis Article" entitled "Ancient Sedimentary Structures in the <3.7 Ga Gillespie Lake Member, Mars, That Resemble Macroscopic Morphology, Spatial Associations, and Temporal Succession in Terrestrial Microbialites", and provides a hypothesis (NOT a claim!) that "The sedimentary structures in the <3.7 Ga Gillespie Lake Member on Mars are ancient MISS produced by interactions between microbial mats and their environment", and spells out what further detailed investigations this would prompt to test the hypotheses. Specifically, she gives "a strategy for detecting, identifying, confirming, and differentiating possible MISS during current and future Mars missions."

      Seems like an entirely reasonable and scientific basis to me, which will no doubt be examined and tested by others; i.e. in accordance with "The Scientific Method".

  8. Palpy

    Er, perhaps off-topic ... Martian deep biosphere?

    We're pretty sure that water was on the surface of Mars for awhile, and we know that liquid -- probably salty water -- still sometimes reaches the surface of Mars and makes gullies in the dust.

    We also know that Earth's microbial biosphere goes very deep underground, and that many of its denizens have no need of oxygen or light. ("Studies suggest that chemolithoautotrophs were the first primary producers, and that the ‘tree’ of terrestrial life roots in non-photosynthetic H2-driven communities... They are capable of utilizing numerous electron donors and acceptors to obtain metabolic energy, and, depending on environmental conditions, are capable of switching between metabolic pathways." -- Frank Reith, Geology magazine, 2011)

    Speculations, but suggestive perhaps.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Let me check the book of all creation....

    Hmmmmm, nothing in the bible about this.

    Must be false.

    [TROLL]

  10. JCitizen
    Holmes

    I'm completely open to the truth myself...

    Because I am a Christian. I have no preconceived ideas about creation, because I strive for the truth, as much as is humanly possible. God works in mysterious ways, and I'm not qualified to judge it at all. The Bible is truth, it is just that the creation story is also just a representation of the truth, just like any parable written within. If wondering about creation were easy, there would be no need of faith!

    1. ravenviz Silver badge

      Re: I'm completely open to the truth myself...

      Wondering about creation just needs wonder.

    2. Winkypop Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: I'm completely open to the truth myself...

      Christian apologetics soundly defined in one paragraph.

      Good job.

  11. PK

    Where there's fossils, there's OIL

    There, that should speed up the space race a bit...

  12. Stevie

    Bah!

    "NASA rover finds FOSSILS of ALIEN LIFE on MARS"

    Prediction: No it hasn't.

    Be nice if just once this one proved me wrong and the scientist hasn't been blinded by the light, but I'm not holding my breath.

  13. Colin 4
    Pint

    Keep calm and look for alternate explanations

    I really, really hope this is truly fossils of life!

    But it's a bit premature to omit "possible" from the title, dontcha think?

    WAY too early to be popping sparkling white wine corks .... but still - exciting possibility !

    Beer icon, 'cos it's certainly at the toast by pint stage ;-)

    1. DugEBug

      Re: Keep calm and look for alternate explanations

      "But it's a bit premature to omit "possible" from the title, dontcha think?"

      Indeed. I smell a general bias that says, "There MUST be life somewhere else, so let's go spend a lot of money finding it". The unbiased approach would be "There is a LOT we don't know about the universe, so let's go spend a lot of money learning more about it".

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022