Ah, well... nobody's perfect.
SA, of the "Well, Maybe Except Christ Class", on her own...
If there is one thing that is not tolerated within the scientific community it is bad science. If someone makes an extraordinary claim, the microscopes come out looking for flaws. When a flaw is found it is used to debunk the claim. If those scientists fudged the arsenic-based bacteria discovery then they are mud in the scientific community, and well they should be. If nothing else your post, Shelby, demonstrates very well that the findings of science that have stood the double test of scrutiny and time can be trusted.
Such is (alien) life. Or not.
Hopefully, Wikileaks will reveal the documents proving that the U.S. knows about UFOs, aliens, flying cars, laser guns, etc.
Not to worry, IF NASA fudged this it will be rectified.
If the critics are wrong then they will have to explain themsselves also.
The cool thing about science is that there is always someone out there pissed off that they didn't find a new discovery and when someone has, they are all over it !!
Not long ago a casual friend (and Jehovah's Witness) countered my position on evolution through natural selection with the example of the Piltdown Man. To him it was a graphic example of scientists lieing through their teeth and proof that whatever they say cannot be trusted. Piltdown Man was, of course, a complete fabrication, some called it a hoax. It took 40 years for those in the anthropological community to debunk it, which is really rather shameful. But debunk it they did, as much as they dragged their feet in the process. They might be forgiven only because of the existence of many, many other examples of pre-h. sapiens remains in existence which have not been debunked, despite intense scrutiny. Key point, lost on my friend, is Piltdown Man is not an indication that evolutionary science is corrupt but just the opposite.
If you want to win the Nobel Prize, become rich and famous and have your name endure through history along with Archimedes, Curie, Newton, Copernicus, Einstein, Aristotle etc. etc., all you have to do is find the tiny flaw that brings down Darwin's theory.
Well said Nickolas,
When a controversy is exposed and brought down, it is not a sign of where something fails, but how it succeeds.
I have always said that IF all the numbers add up from all the sources and their is no controversy, WATCH OUT !
Life is never that neat, LOL !
I imagine it will go back and forth for a bit. A new discovery (or a false discovery) is going to get a ton of scrutiny. Reading some of the comments on the article, I had to laugh at Robert Pink. He has two comments, and well, what he did is just something everyone has done, and I laughed at his response to himself as well :)
Bringing down Darwin has been tried in great earnest. The latest attempt, and perceived to be the most powerful, is that particular subset of the notion (by no means a theory) of Intelligent Design (ID, ironically sprung from the EGO of certain creationists), called irreducible complexity. There was great excitement in the creationist camp for awhile, until it, too, was blown out of the water.
I am by NO means a science enthusiast, dear Nick (peace to you!), but could the "missing link"... and the fact that folks keep trying to make one up... be such a "tiny" flaw? I'm not saying there isn't "prehistoric" man, per se. But I'm not sure they've actually linked us, literally, to our "cousin" the primate. It seems rational to me to believe that God only needed to use a few... ummmm... genes, DNA patterns, whathaveyou, to create every animal life KIND (vs. species which is MUCH more numerous, and basically DO evolve... from other species... but not necessarily the genus... and certainly not the KIND).
I mean, I could be wrong, but my sense of rationality would say that if we all evolved from the same one cell (or something similar), God could have also used the same one-cell as a start to bring all physical life into existence. You know, start with the one and then "build" on that. I would just call that one "cell" His Son, is all.
I must admit, it has always been curious to me as to how we don't have a problem with a creature crawling out of the muck and growing legs... for which evidence, even ancient drawings or writings, has yet to be produced, but ROTFL when we thing of something (i.e., a "serpent", perhaps) losing its "legs." Even though there is an ancient record. How are we so sure that the one is more plausible as the other? Grow legs... lose legs. Even the one that grew them apparently lost them, at some point.
I know, I know... and the Greeks believed heaven was a huge mountain above the clouds (ummmm... could that be because of the Hebrew/Israelite influence in Babylon and Medo-Persia regarding Mt. Zion, which influence permeated the "world" of the Greeks, who took over just after... and was carried over into the Roman belief system when THEY took over? Just a thought... or two...)
I dunno... if the cave drawings done supposedly 10,000's of thousands of years ago showed man looking... I dunno... "different" somehow... you know, anything other than standing upright, on two legs, with two arms, a head... two eyes, two ears... fairly hairless body... maybe even some knuckles dragging, etc., you know what I mean... I believe I would be more likely to consider that perhaps we did evolve from a lower life form. Right now, though, the "evidence" just doesn't "persuade" me.
I am also not necessarily persuaded, however, that there isn't "life"... "somewhere [else] out there." Indeed, I absolutely believe there is. Just not so certain it's all physical, though...
Anyway... thought the article was interesting, in light of NASA's attempts to get everybody all "twitterpated" over whatever it was.
Again, peace to you!
Your servant and a slave of Christ,