And it's possible that other planets may have had a more suitable atmosphere for life in the past but have since become inhabitable on the surface... which may strengthen the possibility that more advanced life could exist within a planet rather than atop it!
Exactly. While there's no definite proof that, in the past, other local planets had once supported some form of life, there's always the possibility.
ernie, what interests me here is that fact that your saying theres all of this evidence, but you dont have have anything to back it up
There's no proof that intelligent extraterrestrial life forms exist, but there's plenty of evidence scattered throughout the globe that strongly hints at the possibility of alien existence. It's up to you how you choose to interpret it.
In the idea that space is endless with unknown number of galaxies and planets it is only a statistical probability that another planet would have life on it.
Aliens are real. Just not in the shape or form you would think they would be on. For example, there is life on mars, which we consider them aliens. They would consider us aliens also just for the fact that we are a different species.
aliens...yes but not how we seem them (short green things) it can be some sort of dinosaurs, fish,animals or even like humans.i can't say how i think that they look or where they are but i think they are somewhere in the universe
aliens...yes but not how we seem them (short green things) it can be some sort of dinosaurs, fish,animals or even like humans.
How messed up. It can't be dinosaurs since that would mean there is a line of descent between them and the dinosaurs on earth, whichever direction it may be. Also since when are dinosaurs, fish or humans not animals?
NASA Reveals [high probability of] Life on Mars
Fossilized organisms were also discovered in 1996 on a meteorite. This is all news to you?
Some of it is news to me, and interesting news; at least the little factual bits I could filter out. The article is, sorry to say, crap. Chaotic, inconsistent, misleading, sensational; you name it.
The only thing they say on the fossils, the last two lines, is this:
In 1996, they said they had discovered fossilised organisms in a meteorite from the planet.
But other scientists were sceptical.
The middle part is a list of quotes ranging from "it's not proof" to "it's an absolute certainty". The article itself uses a whole array of different terms.
But the worst is mentioning "Alien bugs", implying multicellular life even though that's stupid at the current stage of events. Between insects and bacterias, the ones who produce methane here on earth are the latter.
you realize that mars used to be lush green full of huge rivers and it could have developed meathane producing bugs but it left the phase and became dead buteverntoally it will go back to a planet with life its like some famus place that i cant remeber that name of used to be lush and now it dried up but it will be lush again
The article is, sorry to say, crap. Chaotic, inconsistent, misleading, sensational; you name it.
The source leans far towards the existence of life on Mars, even though it does in fact say that it's not proof. You'll notice that I put [high probability of] in the link for that reason.
The only thing they say on the fossils, the last two lines, is this:
The article only reminded me of the several meteorites that have hinted at the possibility of life on Mars during some point in time. Again, not proof.
you realize that mars used to be lush green full of huge rivers and it could have developed meathane producing bugs but it left the phase and became dead buteverntoally it will go back to a planet with life its like some famus place that i cant remeber that name of used to be lush and now it dried up but it will be lush again
The source leans far towards the existence of life on Mars, even though it does in fact say that it's not proof. You'll notice that I put [high probability of] in the link for that reason.
Problem is not that it doesn't say that, problem is it says many things. Yes, I noticed the brackets you put, didn't want to attack anything you said; I just shared my view on the article. I do agree that it is possible for microscopic organisms to exist/have existed on Mars and other planets, but for now it's all supositions.
The article only reminded me of the several meteorites that have hinted at the possibility of life on Mars during some point in time. Again, not proof.
Now that's information Particularly interesting are the seven criteria. I wonder if more detailed investigations will confirm or discard the organic origin of those structures.
you realize that mars used to be lush green full of huge rivers and it could have developed meathane producing bugs but it left the phase and became dead buteverntoally it will go back to a planet with life its like some famus place that i cant remeber that name of used to be lush and now it dried up but it will be lush again