Follow Me On Twitter!

Thursday, April 29, 2010

The Ever Expanding Basis Of "Evidence"

Came across this on Drudge this morning:

Click here for story: NASA: Evidence of life on Mars

Now, maybe like me, you assumed from the headline that remains of carbon-based nature were found on Mars. Maybe a fossilized plant. Maybe even at the extreme, some long dead micro-organisms.

None of that. This is the "evidence":
A special mission to the Red Planet has revealed the likely presence of a form of pond scum - the building blocks of life as we know it.
Notice, "likely presence". Not the actual presence. That is evidence? Excuse me for a minute while I pick myself off the floor from laughing so hard. Imagine if this measure was applied to criminal cases. "It is likely that physical evidence exists that proves that the defendant committed this crime. Granted, we haven't found that evidence, but the fact that it likely exists should be good enough."

Also here:
Previous missions to Mars have concluded there is probably water on the planet.
Probably water? Based on what?
The recent missions have gathered evidence of sulphates on Mars, a strong indication there is water on the planet and therefore life.
Wow. And this is what they call "science"?

They even admit that their assumption is unproven:
"Two, it turns out on earth there just hasn't been hardly any work done at all to show whether gypsum ever includes within it preserved evidence of former life."
LOL So they are basing the idea that there is life on Mars on the probability that there is water based on sulphates found, like gypsum, even though they have no idea whether gypsum indicates A) water or B) life.

Great work there NASA. No wonder Obama is defunding your space program.

Now this would be true evidence of life on Mars!

No comments: