New Mars Forums

It was called 'Amok Time'. Beginning of the 2nd season.

James Doohan

I'm an ole' trekker from way back... :;):

I'm sure it will end up a future tourist attraction anyway. " ...and up ahead on the left is the infamous 'face'. A strangely shaped mesa which, back in the late 20th Century, created a controversy that...." 

Hey JC,
I was joking. I burst out laughing when I read your name. That's all. ???

(I like that alternate theory... )

Geeze whiz!
I really opened up a great and Holy can o' worms here, eh?:D
...that's what I get for opening my big mouth...
Hey Dickbill,

What is truth? Now there's a loaded question. Without getting to deeply into a theological arguement, suffice to say that I think truth is what is verifiable and actual. Truth is a tough word to define in any case. I'd hope that the bible was not the only guide post or tool a person had for truth. Symbols and metaphors are devices used in literature to reveal the various forms of philosophic and moral truths pertaining to their protagonist's circumstances. The moral truth of a man who was believed to have sacrificed himself for the sake of others is a powerful one - it doesn't require any science to verify that.
People being ressurrected from the dead, born of virgin birth, walking on water, etc, if taken seriously and literally must come face to face with what knowledge and experience has proven as possible or impossible. Works of fiction, whether based on real people that actually existed in history or not, can still 'move mountains', as it were. It's called inspiration and it's an awesome motivator, but science and factual knowledge can inspire and motivate too, profoundly! I'm not saying get rid of the stories. I'm saying lets put them into clear perspective. Love still exists. Sacrifice for the greater good still exists. The religions of this world do not have a monopoly on Morality, and neither does a single book of poignant stories. I do not and will never discount the emotional, moral, and philosophic power of any type of historic literature. It is indeed vitally important and has its own right to exist, after all, we owe some degree of gratitude to it's attempt to bring civilization and the trauma of everyday life to a manageable, bearable level. In my opinion we needed it to reassure ourselves when dealing with the 'unknown' and to deal with our mortality. But today, the situation is substantially different. Science is clearing a path through the unknown in ways the stone age peoples of years past would consider godlike. We have grown up considerably since those desperate times and are continueing to grow every day. There is no need to throw away morality or discount it. Indeed, if we lose our humility, I suspect we will perish as a species, and the universe will go on, unaffected by its loss.

Great point. You learned that message well. If it were proven that Jesus did not exist, irrefutably, why should that fact change your faith toward humanity? You now have the gift of understanding an important lesson of life! Should his existence make any difference? The hero, in fiction has not suffered in vain IF, the reader has appreciated and embraced respectfully that character's burden. No writer writes from a blank slate! Where does all the great written material come from? It is copied from, life! We should relish that awesome, creative gift of imagination to get across an important point to any who will listen. We don't have to jump off a cliff to know what will happen in reality. We don't have to nail ourselves to a cross to understand the passion. Jesus doesn't have to be made real, in the flesh, physically, for his message to be meaningful or any less real, any more than he would have to be born of virgin or walk on water. You, will take care of the real stuff, the meaningful, humanistic stuff, in the here and now, because you care and you are actually here. Why have a crutch?

It is important. Your absolutely right, dickbill. What do you say? Do you think that if we go on discussing this long enough, that we will build a bridge of understanding between religion and science? :;):  Some of what I said above pertains to what you said here. When all is said and done it is ultimately your personal choice how you want to live your life and think about life. I don't have a solution for you or an answer. I've done my best only to examine more closely some problems inherent in the Faith versus Skeptical Inquiry debate. I can only say with certainty that we as humans do what we must to get through this life. Everyone is different and is entitled to their way of life and opinion of what it means and is. I can do no more.

Thanks for that one Julius Caesar!!!
...perhaps you could find out for us what Herod had to say 'bout all this?! :;):

But seriously, the original question was the concern of religious perception or backlash with regard to finding life on Mars. The digressions come from an insistance to rationalize the compatibility of religion to scientific findings as a result of my focusing on a choice of words used by RG concerning the supposed 'faith of scientists' which I believe is a missapplication when used from within a religious context. This is a very simple, little, some think harmless, misrepresentation of the science community, as commonly refered to as... 'light hearted humour' is used to gloss over something that makes folks feel discomfort... after all, its annoying that a significant, factual detail should intrude on the comfy feelings of a feeling group of harmless, well-intentioned faithful. But this doesn't diminish, in my view anyway, the importance of it.
The innate tendency to ignore or brush off, or misinterpret, evidence and the methods used to obtain it by the religious because of the discomfort it creates within the 'spiritual' mind-set is palpable. The logical, rational part of that mind-set is forced to deal with actual results and forms of proof which counter the faith impulse to trust in traditional thought and ideas. "Don't question," they say,"Have faith in God! Jesus...(or whoever) will reveal the answers..."

There a number of states in the U.S. that feel the teaching of evolution, or the teaching of it without creationism as a 'balance', is unfair. Apparently the two subjects are considered on equal par. Either 'could' equally be true. I find this disturbing, especially if the creationist agenda is taught as if it were true. If that's the case then remove biology, geology, chemistry...any and all the sciences and lets go back to a predominately religious education system. Hell, while were at it, why not dissolve the separation of church and state?

Hi Dickbill,
What about Occam's Razor? The simplist explanation?

...or maybe they were metaphors used to comfort a superstitious population that desperately needed other-worldly comfort in a time which admittedly must have been torturous. Don't get me wrong, it's a great story, but it's just that - a great story. They didn't have special effects in those days, so miracles of fiction had to suffice.

Pheww!!.. Now, having said all that. This whole diatribe was intended only as a point I wanted to make with regard to RG's innocent enough comment and word usage. I apologize for rocking the boat here. I felt a need to express something and I did, that's what forums are for after all. It's still a free country where religion and science can live, at least with civility, if not in marriage.

If life is found on Mars, and its proven to be Martian in origin, things are gonna change... gradually, over time...

Thanks for your patience.

Wow! I go away for a bit and I'm way behind you guys! Love the responses.

Hi Rxke,

I don't know... I just have a tough time feeling very 'secure or comfortable' with where this biotechnology is going. There are so many potentially chaotic/random variables which can't be accounted for when dealing with such inherent complexity and 'what-results-down-the-road' emergence issues.
Even without all our genetic tinkering I've long suspected that our species could be at a disturbingly close demise just through a possible genetic deterioration - weakness (es) - we may be unaware of just through the longevity issue you bring up. Perhaps there's just some 'roof' we will hit in the code itself, a termination point where more complexity can be no more, or better yeat a genetic flaw which, through sheer chance, dooms our species within the next few millenia or so. Never mind what our intentional manipulations might produce in the long term. I'm certainly not an optimistic futurist when pondering about the fragility of our proud and determined species from a genetic standpoint. Where genetic tinkering can benifit in the 'short term' with crops and stemcells, etc, we have so little data on the longterm/outcome those effects will have. I guess its the 'predictability' of the technology as compared with 'physical, non-biological mechanism' yet imitative of biology, that I would feel more confident/comfortable with. But perhaps I underestimate the advances, the 'control over' - or lack thereof -  for which we predetermine a desired outcome. I admit I have a very poor understanding of present day biotech. I often wonder if it has confidence in itself or if its just on an economic 'fast track' to prove itself?

Hi Sbird,

However it manifests itself the idea is definitely similar. I like this idea. Tiny nano-mechanisms dispersed through the cosmos... or even sophisticated photonic holograms, or some such devices, as probes, say,...   the light barrier and time are our only real issues for hopping between other star systems. Yes, the mind reels!

Hi Cobra,

I whole heartedly empathize. That's why I feel we almost have to include all those traits in our machinations which preserve what makes us uniquely human, though it may appear a false veneer over time. Kind of like eating veggy burgers to give the feeling that we are still eating a burger  without the actual meat! But then all this speculation on my part is very 21st century human-centric. Tomorrows humans will sympathize and care little of our concerns for the comforts and pleasures of flesh, I suspect. 
Just think! All that we consider 'important' now, will one day be considered so trivial... it staggers the mind! I guess that's why I love good science fiction - when done well it's like a slap in the face, waking us up not to just what might be, but to what is really, truly important about our existence.

Yes, the notion of 'plugging into' a machine, perhaps implanting/encoding ones neural processes digitally is a fascinating one in sci-fi. Both disturbing yet beautiful in a morbidly fascinating way...

It's so hard to say what eternal life would be like. It's a hell of a long time. I wonder if having the 'choice' to vanish into eternity would be considered a positive, much like we may empathize with the terminally ill who wish to be 'turned off' out of mercy. Presently our minds cannot conceive of the immense periods of time taken by evolution that resulted in us. But eternity!... (I need a drink).
Matbe though we will just 'adapt' to the immensity of time? We'll certainly have to keep ourselves busy!

I'd hope that with our sophistication by that time we would be very careful about such things. In other words our ability to prevent will grow exponentially with our statistical odds of getting run over when crossing a galactic asteroid field. :;):

I like Mad Grads last statement:

I have to go to bed now...

:;):
Hi Gen,
Actually its a Mariner 9 shot I believe. In my book 'A Travellers Guide...' there are better close up shots, and your right, those walls are 3 kilometers on a side. And yes, that's an 86 kilometer eroded impact crater it sits upon, partially buried under sediments. There's a fascinating explanation in the book; "...radial and concentric fractures produce these patterns of rectalinear ridges... a partial exhumation of a previously buried structure...(crater)" , similar examples of which can be found on our moon.

It's a great red herring though, don't you think? I think it beats 'the face' any day!
:laugh:

Excellent question Byron!
In the beginning I would suspect that there would be an incredible wave of skepticism, from, ironically, the religious right.
Dependant on the kind of evidence I'd say, if it were in microbial form, there would be all kinds of naysayers no matter what technology was brought to bare. It could have begun on Earth, after all.
If it were in fossil form, again there would be doubts and rationalizations of reinterpretation of scriptures the world over, a sort of collective revisionism of interpretation of scriptures in every culture.
If we found a tiny alien animal or insect, someone would say it was orchestrated by some mad geneticist in South America and imported to the then existant Mars colony.
If we were visited by an actual alien intelligence, the religious communities most likely would unanimously agree that they were hostile Satanic minions and should be eradicated from the face of the Earth.

Or they would revise their personal interpretations of scripture ...

Or an enthusiastic group of missionaries would request to be taken to their homeworld where they would begin the business of conversion, pronto! :;):

...or we'd be eaten. And we wouldn't have to worry about such things.

I can't help myself..  May the powers that be, at New Mars, forgive me for what I'm about to say. I can't help myself.

RG, I apologize in advance for I must really take issue with your choice of words here. There is a popular tendency amoung the religiously inclined to mix drinks when discussing science and religion. I don't want to offend or pretend take your right to belief away from you, but, spirituality and scientific investigation are, by definition and practice, diametrically opposed. It is important to the integrity of science that this is so - science cannot exist otherwise. Faith in holy doctrine and spiritual belief are not the same as a scientist's axioms which originated from the examination of hard factual evidence through scientific questioning and the seeking of reason leading progressively to the knowledge we humans have so determinedly struggled for since the very beginnings of mans evolution.
Faith in religious doctrine and 'assumption' based on empirical evidence are two very different forms of 'spirit'.
A Nasa scientist can hardly be accused of 'having faith', in the religious context your implying, for an educated speculation based on a tested hypothesis.

Again your using religious terminology to describe those who's efforts are not definable within a religious context. 
To be honest, I have to admit that I do not know, one way or the other, of a supreme being (in the religious sense and not the 'advanced alien being' sense). I'm quite convinced there are forces smarter, stronger, and perhaps even functioning in multidimensions... but I think that entity(s) such as these will be explainable and examinable, quantifiable, and understandable. But likely we may mistaken them for godliness, who knows? Call me a blockheaded fanatical skeptical rationalist if you want.(Thanks for that one ecrasez.) I can't help myself.

But one thing, RG, there must never be 'shame' no matter what our persuasions. We are united in our humanity and in love despite our systems of belief. There is no contradiction in this.

I do believe that overall, as we progress throughout the solar system and the stars, that many of the religiously dominant cultures on our planet will be introspectively re-examining their most cherished beliefs. Some will move on, others will dig in their heels. But I suspect that the big 4 - Islam, Christianity, Judaism and Buddhism - will be with us for centuries to come, but most likely in a form unrecognizable to us now. And who knows? Perhaps there will be an alien religion brought to Earth which will convert us all with its power...

...but I suspect that's unlikely.

Thanks for that Rxke,
Haven't been there for a while. Interesting forum. Very little mincing with words, I like it. :up:

Far be it from me to poop on anyones party. I too am carried away with the speculation and possibilities. With all due respect, there's nothing wrong with dreaming, hell, it keeps many of us going through life. On the other hand, I believe we need to keep in mind the possibility of there being NO fossils at Endurance. Perhaps a few extra spherules. Maybe we will just see more of the same as we've seen at Eagle crater. It's entirely possible. I thought we would see something remarkable at Bonneville (well, it was remarkable in and of itself, very pretty, but we do seem to be heading for the hills now...)
I don't want anyone here to hate me for saying this. I just don't like the 'big' letdowns which seem inherent when building up too much expectation and anticipation toward an upcoming event. I'd hazard a guess that many scientists are reserved for that very reason - they've been disappointed far too often in the past. I guess I'm just saying that it is possible that 'we' are reading far too much into the press conferences. Steve Squyres may be secretly harbouring exciting information none of us are aware of, Nasa may be covetously withholding some prime speculation just waiting for the right moment to spring it on its unsuspecting public, I don't know and I couldn't say. But if asked directly, I'm sure Dr. Squyres would flat out deny the possibility of fossils at Endurance until he was absolutely sure.

Speculation is such a double edged sword. ???
(I'm not claiming it isn't fun though...)  :;):

Here it is folks! Is this the final word on the Martian blueberry spherules?

[http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/ma … 40317.html]Hematite's the word!

[=http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_fossils_040316.html]Fossils on Mars?

It's so easy for this (me) arm chair fossil hunter and professional backseat observer to come to these snap conclusions based on observation of photos alone. For me anyway, it's too tempting to fall into the 'Hoagland trap' of biasly looking for and projecting my desires onto inanimate things. (albeit, Hoagland seems to make his living from this delusional practice, to the dismay of many in the scientific community.) Having said that though, it can be fun to speculate, I suppose, as long as the speculation remains 'fun'.

(now...    what are those damnable blueberries made of?!!) :bars: