<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_14_1530254</id>
	<title>Martian Microbe Fossils, Not So Debunked Anymore</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1263485940000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>rubycodez writes <i>"Three meteorites, including one that has been in a British museum for over a century, are going to be <a href="http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-01/proof-life-three-martian-rocks-may-come-year?page=">put under the electron microscope</a> and ion microprobe by NASA.  We're 'very, very close to proving there is or has been life [on Mars],' said David McKay, chief of astrobiology at Johnson Space Center."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>rubycodez writes " Three meteorites , including one that has been in a British museum for over a century , are going to be put under the electron microscope and ion microprobe by NASA .
We 're 'very , very close to proving there is or has been life [ on Mars ] , ' said David McKay , chief of astrobiology at Johnson Space Center .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rubycodez writes "Three meteorites, including one that has been in a British museum for over a century, are going to be put under the electron microscope and ion microprobe by NASA.
We're 'very, very close to proving there is or has been life [on Mars],' said David McKay, chief of astrobiology at Johnson Space Center.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30776172</id>
	<title>Re:I'd love to talk to someone knowledgeable about</title>
	<author>snailsupreme</author>
	<datestamp>1263588300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ahh... You must be Dan Brown. Welcome to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahh... You must be Dan Brown .
Welcome to / .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahh... You must be Dan Brown.
Welcome to /.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768366</id>
	<title>Re:My psychic prediction</title>
	<author>IronChef</author>
	<datestamp>1263498240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Actually, their standard rhetoric on dinosaurs would still apply: Either the devil put it there to destroy mankinds belief in God, or else God placed it there as part of the creation process to test the faith of true believers.</p></div><p>The only thing I have to say to people who believe that is this:</p><p>If God gave us brains yet doesn't wish us to USE them as proof of our faith, then he's not a God that I care to associate with.</p><p>Well, ok, I might also tell them that their narrow view of the world is blinding them to the majesty of all Creation, which extends not just from one horizon to the other, but instead subsumes EVERYTHING from the most minute subatomic particles to the breadth of the entire Universe.</p><p>OK, well, those aren't the only things I would say. There might be some shouting. I can't rule that out.</p><p>I am not a religious person, but I am a cranky person, and I am holding out hope for green-skinned alien women.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , their standard rhetoric on dinosaurs would still apply : Either the devil put it there to destroy mankinds belief in God , or else God placed it there as part of the creation process to test the faith of true believers.The only thing I have to say to people who believe that is this : If God gave us brains yet does n't wish us to USE them as proof of our faith , then he 's not a God that I care to associate with.Well , ok , I might also tell them that their narrow view of the world is blinding them to the majesty of all Creation , which extends not just from one horizon to the other , but instead subsumes EVERYTHING from the most minute subatomic particles to the breadth of the entire Universe.OK , well , those are n't the only things I would say .
There might be some shouting .
I ca n't rule that out.I am not a religious person , but I am a cranky person , and I am holding out hope for green-skinned alien women .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, their standard rhetoric on dinosaurs would still apply: Either the devil put it there to destroy mankinds belief in God, or else God placed it there as part of the creation process to test the faith of true believers.The only thing I have to say to people who believe that is this:If God gave us brains yet doesn't wish us to USE them as proof of our faith, then he's not a God that I care to associate with.Well, ok, I might also tell them that their narrow view of the world is blinding them to the majesty of all Creation, which extends not just from one horizon to the other, but instead subsumes EVERYTHING from the most minute subatomic particles to the breadth of the entire Universe.OK, well, those aren't the only things I would say.
There might be some shouting.
I can't rule that out.I am not a religious person, but I am a cranky person, and I am holding out hope for green-skinned alien women.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766974</id>
	<title>Re:My psychic prediction</title>
	<author>glueball</author>
	<datestamp>1263494040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Theistic Evolutionists(Catholics tend to this one) will not have any epiphanies<br></i></p><p>You're right, it has been addressed by the Vatican.  Catholics believe aliens could exist.  No epiphanies required.</p><p><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7399661.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7399661.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Theistic Evolutionists ( Catholics tend to this one ) will not have any epiphaniesYou 're right , it has been addressed by the Vatican .
Catholics believe aliens could exist .
No epiphanies required.http : //news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7399661.stm [ bbc.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Theistic Evolutionists(Catholics tend to this one) will not have any epiphaniesYou're right, it has been addressed by the Vatican.
Catholics believe aliens could exist.
No epiphanies required.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7399661.stm [bbc.co.uk]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30775296</id>
	<title>Life on Mars!</title>
	<author>Mal-2</author>
	<datestamp>1263490440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mars, motherfucker! Do you grok it?</p><p>Mal-2</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mars , motherfucker !
Do you grok it ? Mal-2</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mars, motherfucker!
Do you grok it?Mal-2</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765910</id>
	<title>Wait, huh?</title>
	<author>Yamata no Orochi</author>
	<datestamp>1263490500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How did meteorites <i>from Mars</i> end up on Earth? I'm not trying to suggest it's not true, but how does that happen? What causes portions of mars to both erupt out of the planet AND escape Mars' gravity/orbit and wind up on Earth? Aren't those immensely small odds? And we have 3 such meteorites?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How did meteorites from Mars end up on Earth ?
I 'm not trying to suggest it 's not true , but how does that happen ?
What causes portions of mars to both erupt out of the planet AND escape Mars ' gravity/orbit and wind up on Earth ?
Are n't those immensely small odds ?
And we have 3 such meteorites ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How did meteorites from Mars end up on Earth?
I'm not trying to suggest it's not true, but how does that happen?
What causes portions of mars to both erupt out of the planet AND escape Mars' gravity/orbit and wind up on Earth?
Aren't those immensely small odds?
And we have 3 such meteorites?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766628</id>
	<title>Re:Life on Mars is impossible...</title>
	<author>MightyMartian</author>
	<datestamp>1263492840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1950 called and once their abiogenesis theory back.  There are competing theories, in particular the possibility that life may have evolved around deep sea vents.  Lots of organic compounds, liquid water and lots and lots of energy.</p><p>If there were similar conditions in the early seas of Mars, then there's no reason to suspect that life could not have began in similar fashion there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1950 called and once their abiogenesis theory back .
There are competing theories , in particular the possibility that life may have evolved around deep sea vents .
Lots of organic compounds , liquid water and lots and lots of energy.If there were similar conditions in the early seas of Mars , then there 's no reason to suspect that life could not have began in similar fashion there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1950 called and once their abiogenesis theory back.
There are competing theories, in particular the possibility that life may have evolved around deep sea vents.
Lots of organic compounds, liquid water and lots and lots of energy.If there were similar conditions in the early seas of Mars, then there's no reason to suspect that life could not have began in similar fashion there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767414</id>
	<title>Re:I'd love to talk to someone knowledgeable about</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1263495600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For example, how did we determine that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan\_Hills\_84001" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Allan Hills 84001</a> [wikipedia.org] came from Mars and not anywhere else?  Not even a Mars-like planet in a nearby solar system?  How?</p></div><p>On the bottom of the rock, it was stamped "Made on Mars".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For example , how did we determine that Allan Hills 84001 [ wikipedia.org ] came from Mars and not anywhere else ?
Not even a Mars-like planet in a nearby solar system ?
How ? On the bottom of the rock , it was stamped " Made on Mars " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example, how did we determine that Allan Hills 84001 [wikipedia.org] came from Mars and not anywhere else?
Not even a Mars-like planet in a nearby solar system?
How?On the bottom of the rock, it was stamped "Made on Mars".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30776018</id>
	<title>Re:Obviously</title>
	<author>Macrat</author>
	<datestamp>1263586140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pop quiz? Or final exam?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pop quiz ?
Or final exam ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pop quiz?
Or final exam?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766490</id>
	<title>Re:I'd love to talk to someone knowledgeable about</title>
	<author>mopomi</author>
	<datestamp>1263492420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disclaimer:  I am a planetary scientist but do not work directly on the martian meteorites.</p><p>1) We know that the rocks are from Mars because they all have consistent isotope ratios between the various meteorites that are inconsistent with those isotope ratios on Earth but consistent with isotopic ratios on Mars<br><a href="http://wapedia.mobi/en/Neutron\_activation\_analysis" title="wapedia.mobi">http://wapedia.mobi/en/Neutron\_activation\_analysis</a> [wapedia.mobi]<br><a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?\_ob=ArticleURL&amp;\_udi=B6V6T-41WBDHD-8&amp;\_coverDate=10\%2F31\%2F2000&amp;\_alid=445411040&amp;\_rdoc=1&amp;\_fmt=&amp;\_orig=search&amp;\_qd=1&amp;\_cdi=5823&amp;\_sort=d&amp;view=c&amp;\_acct=C000053194&amp;\_version=1&amp;\_urlVersion=0&amp;\_userid=1495569&amp;md5=1c1b0d04dba7f06365b072655bef68b3" title="sciencedirect.com">http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?\_ob=ArticleURL&amp;\_udi=B6V6T-41WBDHD-8&amp;\_coverDate=10\%2F31\%2F2000&amp;\_alid=445411040&amp;\_rdoc=1&amp;\_fmt=&amp;\_orig=search&amp;\_qd=1&amp;\_cdi=5823&amp;\_sort=d&amp;view=c&amp;\_acct=C000053194&amp;\_version=1&amp;\_urlVersion=0&amp;\_userid=1495569&amp;md5=1c1b0d04dba7f06365b072655bef68b3</a> [sciencedirect.com]  (May need a subscription)</p><p>2) The age(s) of the possible fossils are greater than the time the meteorites have been on Earth. Again, this can be calculated using various isotope ratios. In essence, these things formed while the rocks were still on Mars.</p><p>3) I agree with your discomfort with the word "prove."  Most scientific study is based on the Popper philosophy of disproving something rather than proving its opposite.</p><p>A) The new instrumentation and techniques being used on these meteorites are greatly advancing our understanding of them. The press announcement that AH84001 might have evidence of life was premature (what we call "science by press release"), but the publications by the team were certainly good and valid work, whether they are falsified or not...</p><p>B) The scientific word "prove" is more about the lack of any valid competing hypotheses. If you can't come up with a reasonable alternative explanation for the data, you have to accept the presented explanation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disclaimer : I am a planetary scientist but do not work directly on the martian meteorites.1 ) We know that the rocks are from Mars because they all have consistent isotope ratios between the various meteorites that are inconsistent with those isotope ratios on Earth but consistent with isotopic ratios on Marshttp : //wapedia.mobi/en/Neutron \ _activation \ _analysis [ wapedia.mobi ] http : //www.sciencedirect.com/science ? \ _ob = ArticleURL&amp; \ _udi = B6V6T-41WBDHD-8&amp; \ _coverDate = 10 \ % 2F31 \ % 2F2000&amp; \ _alid = 445411040&amp; \ _rdoc = 1&amp; \ _fmt = &amp; \ _orig = search&amp; \ _qd = 1&amp; \ _cdi = 5823&amp; \ _sort = d&amp;view = c&amp; \ _acct = C000053194&amp; \ _version = 1&amp; \ _urlVersion = 0&amp; \ _userid = 1495569&amp;md5 = 1c1b0d04dba7f06365b072655bef68b3 [ sciencedirect.com ] ( May need a subscription ) 2 ) The age ( s ) of the possible fossils are greater than the time the meteorites have been on Earth .
Again , this can be calculated using various isotope ratios .
In essence , these things formed while the rocks were still on Mars.3 ) I agree with your discomfort with the word " prove .
" Most scientific study is based on the Popper philosophy of disproving something rather than proving its opposite.A ) The new instrumentation and techniques being used on these meteorites are greatly advancing our understanding of them .
The press announcement that AH84001 might have evidence of life was premature ( what we call " science by press release " ) , but the publications by the team were certainly good and valid work , whether they are falsified or not...B ) The scientific word " prove " is more about the lack of any valid competing hypotheses .
If you ca n't come up with a reasonable alternative explanation for the data , you have to accept the presented explanation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disclaimer:  I am a planetary scientist but do not work directly on the martian meteorites.1) We know that the rocks are from Mars because they all have consistent isotope ratios between the various meteorites that are inconsistent with those isotope ratios on Earth but consistent with isotopic ratios on Marshttp://wapedia.mobi/en/Neutron\_activation\_analysis [wapedia.mobi]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?\_ob=ArticleURL&amp;\_udi=B6V6T-41WBDHD-8&amp;\_coverDate=10\%2F31\%2F2000&amp;\_alid=445411040&amp;\_rdoc=1&amp;\_fmt=&amp;\_orig=search&amp;\_qd=1&amp;\_cdi=5823&amp;\_sort=d&amp;view=c&amp;\_acct=C000053194&amp;\_version=1&amp;\_urlVersion=0&amp;\_userid=1495569&amp;md5=1c1b0d04dba7f06365b072655bef68b3 [sciencedirect.com]  (May need a subscription)2) The age(s) of the possible fossils are greater than the time the meteorites have been on Earth.
Again, this can be calculated using various isotope ratios.
In essence, these things formed while the rocks were still on Mars.3) I agree with your discomfort with the word "prove.
"  Most scientific study is based on the Popper philosophy of disproving something rather than proving its opposite.A) The new instrumentation and techniques being used on these meteorites are greatly advancing our understanding of them.
The press announcement that AH84001 might have evidence of life was premature (what we call "science by press release"), but the publications by the team were certainly good and valid work, whether they are falsified or not...B) The scientific word "prove" is more about the lack of any valid competing hypotheses.
If you can't come up with a reasonable alternative explanation for the data, you have to accept the presented explanation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766716</id>
	<title>Yadada</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263493140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just hype and fishing for funding. Nothing to see here, move along.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just hype and fishing for funding .
Nothing to see here , move along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just hype and fishing for funding.
Nothing to see here, move along.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768052</id>
	<title>Re:My psychic prediction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263497460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the near complete annihilation of Drake's equation</p></div><p>Drake's equation is about the number of advanced civilizations in the galaxy--what does finding microbes on Mars have to do with that?</p><p>I'll answer for you: very little.</p><p>Your comment is beyond absurd; the Drake equation is a tautology (and a fairly insipid one at that)--it cannot be annihilated, it is defined in such a way that it must be true, and cannot be false.  The only thing finding evidence of microbial life on Mars does to the Drake equation is give us more data from which to estimate the values of certain terms.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the near complete annihilation of Drake 's equationDrake 's equation is about the number of advanced civilizations in the galaxy--what does finding microbes on Mars have to do with that ? I 'll answer for you : very little.Your comment is beyond absurd ; the Drake equation is a tautology ( and a fairly insipid one at that ) --it can not be annihilated , it is defined in such a way that it must be true , and can not be false .
The only thing finding evidence of microbial life on Mars does to the Drake equation is give us more data from which to estimate the values of certain terms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the near complete annihilation of Drake's equationDrake's equation is about the number of advanced civilizations in the galaxy--what does finding microbes on Mars have to do with that?I'll answer for you: very little.Your comment is beyond absurd; the Drake equation is a tautology (and a fairly insipid one at that)--it cannot be annihilated, it is defined in such a way that it must be true, and cannot be false.
The only thing finding evidence of microbial life on Mars does to the Drake equation is give us more data from which to estimate the values of certain terms.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766270</id>
	<title>Re:My psychic prediction</title>
	<author>MightyMartian</author>
	<datestamp>1263491640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I could give a crap about theology.  What I want to know is some of the biochemical properties of these organisms.  Did they use DNA, RNA or some entirely different set of molecules of protein encoding?  Did they share a common ancestor with life on Earth?  Is it possible that life had evolved on Earth prior to the collision with the Mars-sized body that produced the Earth, and we have a sort of limited panspermia going on (or maybe it's visa-versa, maybe life began on Mars)?  If life was on Mars, is it quite possible as its atmosphere slipped away and its surface became incredibly hostile that somewhere below their surfaces, or perhaps even in deeper valleys and rift zones like Valles Marineris, where atmospheric pressure would be higher and the potential for a more habitable zone might be found?</p><p>Of course, this infinitely increases the potential for life elsewhere in the solar system.  Europa becomes target #2, and, potentially a far more likely place than Mars to find a complex ecology.</p><p>I suppose, in consideration of theology, it depends on who you're asking.  Some of the IDers (Michael Behe and his ilk) and Theistic Evolutionists (Catholics tend to this one) will not have any epiphanies.  For Old Earth Creationists, it probably won't sway them.  But YECs, well, that's a group who has heavily painted themselves into a corner.  Now, on top of having to claim the earth is only 6,000 years old, they have to deal gyrations over the age of Mars.  They'll probably start by denying all of it, claiming it to be a hoax by evil evilushionists.  Then they'll come around to the idea that God planted life there, but no later than 6000 years ago!  The people who will change views are the fence sitters at any of these levels.</p><p>As for space exploration, well the push for a long-term manned mission to Mars is going to get a major bump.  We simply do not have the probes complex enough for more than a bit scouring of the few top inches of Mars' crust.  I'm not putting them down, the Mars Landers have been an overwhelming success, but the kind of science any probe sent there, or any probe they're planning to send there, is still pretty limited.</p><p>Maybe we should put off any notions of getting humans there in the next two or three decades, and stretch it out to 2050 or 2060, working on self-sustaining long-term bases for humans, so we can send people there for a few years at a time.  I'm sure you would have no lack of volunteers among the scientific community.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I could give a crap about theology .
What I want to know is some of the biochemical properties of these organisms .
Did they use DNA , RNA or some entirely different set of molecules of protein encoding ?
Did they share a common ancestor with life on Earth ?
Is it possible that life had evolved on Earth prior to the collision with the Mars-sized body that produced the Earth , and we have a sort of limited panspermia going on ( or maybe it 's visa-versa , maybe life began on Mars ) ?
If life was on Mars , is it quite possible as its atmosphere slipped away and its surface became incredibly hostile that somewhere below their surfaces , or perhaps even in deeper valleys and rift zones like Valles Marineris , where atmospheric pressure would be higher and the potential for a more habitable zone might be found ? Of course , this infinitely increases the potential for life elsewhere in the solar system .
Europa becomes target # 2 , and , potentially a far more likely place than Mars to find a complex ecology.I suppose , in consideration of theology , it depends on who you 're asking .
Some of the IDers ( Michael Behe and his ilk ) and Theistic Evolutionists ( Catholics tend to this one ) will not have any epiphanies .
For Old Earth Creationists , it probably wo n't sway them .
But YECs , well , that 's a group who has heavily painted themselves into a corner .
Now , on top of having to claim the earth is only 6,000 years old , they have to deal gyrations over the age of Mars .
They 'll probably start by denying all of it , claiming it to be a hoax by evil evilushionists .
Then they 'll come around to the idea that God planted life there , but no later than 6000 years ago !
The people who will change views are the fence sitters at any of these levels.As for space exploration , well the push for a long-term manned mission to Mars is going to get a major bump .
We simply do not have the probes complex enough for more than a bit scouring of the few top inches of Mars ' crust .
I 'm not putting them down , the Mars Landers have been an overwhelming success , but the kind of science any probe sent there , or any probe they 're planning to send there , is still pretty limited.Maybe we should put off any notions of getting humans there in the next two or three decades , and stretch it out to 2050 or 2060 , working on self-sustaining long-term bases for humans , so we can send people there for a few years at a time .
I 'm sure you would have no lack of volunteers among the scientific community .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I could give a crap about theology.
What I want to know is some of the biochemical properties of these organisms.
Did they use DNA, RNA or some entirely different set of molecules of protein encoding?
Did they share a common ancestor with life on Earth?
Is it possible that life had evolved on Earth prior to the collision with the Mars-sized body that produced the Earth, and we have a sort of limited panspermia going on (or maybe it's visa-versa, maybe life began on Mars)?
If life was on Mars, is it quite possible as its atmosphere slipped away and its surface became incredibly hostile that somewhere below their surfaces, or perhaps even in deeper valleys and rift zones like Valles Marineris, where atmospheric pressure would be higher and the potential for a more habitable zone might be found?Of course, this infinitely increases the potential for life elsewhere in the solar system.
Europa becomes target #2, and, potentially a far more likely place than Mars to find a complex ecology.I suppose, in consideration of theology, it depends on who you're asking.
Some of the IDers (Michael Behe and his ilk) and Theistic Evolutionists (Catholics tend to this one) will not have any epiphanies.
For Old Earth Creationists, it probably won't sway them.
But YECs, well, that's a group who has heavily painted themselves into a corner.
Now, on top of having to claim the earth is only 6,000 years old, they have to deal gyrations over the age of Mars.
They'll probably start by denying all of it, claiming it to be a hoax by evil evilushionists.
Then they'll come around to the idea that God planted life there, but no later than 6000 years ago!
The people who will change views are the fence sitters at any of these levels.As for space exploration, well the push for a long-term manned mission to Mars is going to get a major bump.
We simply do not have the probes complex enough for more than a bit scouring of the few top inches of Mars' crust.
I'm not putting them down, the Mars Landers have been an overwhelming success, but the kind of science any probe sent there, or any probe they're planning to send there, is still pretty limited.Maybe we should put off any notions of getting humans there in the next two or three decades, and stretch it out to 2050 or 2060, working on self-sustaining long-term bases for humans, so we can send people there for a few years at a time.
I'm sure you would have no lack of volunteers among the scientific community.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765652</id>
	<title>That's right, bitches.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263489720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Life on fucking mars.

I'll bet you nerdy cunts never thought you'd see the day.

well, bend over and lick my balls, Jew.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Life on fucking mars .
I 'll bet you nerdy cunts never thought you 'd see the day .
well , bend over and lick my balls , Jew .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Life on fucking mars.
I'll bet you nerdy cunts never thought you'd see the day.
well, bend over and lick my balls, Jew.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767966</id>
	<title>Re:My psychic prediction</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1263497220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, we're still even thinking "life as we know it"... the "golden zone" where earth-like life can exist. There might be other possibilities... we have not travelled anywhere near enough to rule this out.</p><p>"We" have actually been to two other worlds... Luna and Mars. A few short-haired dudes went to the moon, and I think we're all pretty satisfied enough there's no life on the Moon. I'll absolutely concede that one. But even in looking for life on Mars, our space probes have often been flawed: <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/25/1442231" title="slashdot.org">http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/25/1442231</a> [slashdot.org]. If they can't find life on Earth, there's a problem.</p><p>In short, we don't have a bloody clue about life in this solar system. We know there might have been as many as three planets capable of supporting it at some point throughout their history. One is a definite yes today, one a pretty damn definite no (Venus), barring the extremest of extremeophiles living that heat. Mars is more like a "was" than an "is". And we know very little about possibilities, in any practical terms... space probes only help so much, if the expected zone of life is a thousands meters below the moon's surface, as suggested of Europa. The probes to check out Europa, Io, Callisto, and Ganymede won't launch until 2020, with an arrival sometime in 2026, see:http://opfm.jpl.nasa.gov/europajupitersystemmissionejsm/.</p><p>Then there's Titan... no liquid water seen so far, but a cold climate (94K), with liquid hydrocarbon seas, a relatively thick atmosphere of nitrogen and methane, weather, rain, and earth-like features. Earth life, no. A different kind... well, I haven't been there to say for certain....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , we 're still even thinking " life as we know it " ... the " golden zone " where earth-like life can exist .
There might be other possibilities... we have not travelled anywhere near enough to rule this out .
" We " have actually been to two other worlds... Luna and Mars .
A few short-haired dudes went to the moon , and I think we 're all pretty satisfied enough there 's no life on the Moon .
I 'll absolutely concede that one .
But even in looking for life on Mars , our space probes have often been flawed : http : //science.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/05/25/1442231 [ slashdot.org ] .
If they ca n't find life on Earth , there 's a problem.In short , we do n't have a bloody clue about life in this solar system .
We know there might have been as many as three planets capable of supporting it at some point throughout their history .
One is a definite yes today , one a pretty damn definite no ( Venus ) , barring the extremest of extremeophiles living that heat .
Mars is more like a " was " than an " is " .
And we know very little about possibilities , in any practical terms... space probes only help so much , if the expected zone of life is a thousands meters below the moon 's surface , as suggested of Europa .
The probes to check out Europa , Io , Callisto , and Ganymede wo n't launch until 2020 , with an arrival sometime in 2026 , see : http : //opfm.jpl.nasa.gov/europajupitersystemmissionejsm/.Then there 's Titan... no liquid water seen so far , but a cold climate ( 94K ) , with liquid hydrocarbon seas , a relatively thick atmosphere of nitrogen and methane , weather , rain , and earth-like features .
Earth life , no .
A different kind... well , I have n't been there to say for certain... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, we're still even thinking "life as we know it"... the "golden zone" where earth-like life can exist.
There might be other possibilities... we have not travelled anywhere near enough to rule this out.
"We" have actually been to two other worlds... Luna and Mars.
A few short-haired dudes went to the moon, and I think we're all pretty satisfied enough there's no life on the Moon.
I'll absolutely concede that one.
But even in looking for life on Mars, our space probes have often been flawed: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/25/1442231 [slashdot.org].
If they can't find life on Earth, there's a problem.In short, we don't have a bloody clue about life in this solar system.
We know there might have been as many as three planets capable of supporting it at some point throughout their history.
One is a definite yes today, one a pretty damn definite no (Venus), barring the extremest of extremeophiles living that heat.
Mars is more like a "was" than an "is".
And we know very little about possibilities, in any practical terms... space probes only help so much, if the expected zone of life is a thousands meters below the moon's surface, as suggested of Europa.
The probes to check out Europa, Io, Callisto, and Ganymede won't launch until 2020, with an arrival sometime in 2026, see:http://opfm.jpl.nasa.gov/europajupitersystemmissionejsm/.Then there's Titan... no liquid water seen so far, but a cold climate (94K), with liquid hydrocarbon seas, a relatively thick atmosphere of nitrogen and methane, weather, rain, and earth-like features.
Earth life, no.
A different kind... well, I haven't been there to say for certain....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30775132</id>
	<title>Re:My psychic prediction</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1263488580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Estimates are what these days for # of galaxies? Hundreds of billions?</i></p><p>No, don't think so small.  7x10^22, at least.</p><p>You may have heard, "there are more stars in the universe than grains of sand on all of the beaches on Earth."  Then a few years back, they also added "and desserts" and then you still have to at least multiply by 10.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Estimates are what these days for # of galaxies ?
Hundreds of billions ? No , do n't think so small .
7x10 ^ 22 , at least.You may have heard , " there are more stars in the universe than grains of sand on all of the beaches on Earth .
" Then a few years back , they also added " and desserts " and then you still have to at least multiply by 10 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Estimates are what these days for # of galaxies?
Hundreds of billions?No, don't think so small.
7x10^22, at least.You may have heard, "there are more stars in the universe than grains of sand on all of the beaches on Earth.
"  Then a few years back, they also added "and desserts" and then you still have to at least multiply by 10.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30772518</id>
	<title>Mars sceptic but hoping hes wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263471180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well all I can say is great! I would like to imagine that life existed in our solar system before our ancestors waded out of the swamps but I remain sceptical. The main problem I find is the time involved isnt thousands or even millions of years but billions. I know our scientists are doing the best damn job to get an accurate report on this rock but there could be factors we havent even considered. If we knew the origin of life we would then know what to look for on the planet Mars to see if the same conditions were met over there.</p><p>What I do know is this helps my website(www.thedramapod.com) as my team and I will be releasing our own  modern audiodrama of war of the worlds this year, thanks to this rock it doesnt entirely debunk the theory of life on mars.</p><p>Ill be keeping a close eye on this story</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well all I can say is great !
I would like to imagine that life existed in our solar system before our ancestors waded out of the swamps but I remain sceptical .
The main problem I find is the time involved isnt thousands or even millions of years but billions .
I know our scientists are doing the best damn job to get an accurate report on this rock but there could be factors we havent even considered .
If we knew the origin of life we would then know what to look for on the planet Mars to see if the same conditions were met over there.What I do know is this helps my website ( www.thedramapod.com ) as my team and I will be releasing our own modern audiodrama of war of the worlds this year , thanks to this rock it doesnt entirely debunk the theory of life on mars.Ill be keeping a close eye on this story</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well all I can say is great!
I would like to imagine that life existed in our solar system before our ancestors waded out of the swamps but I remain sceptical.
The main problem I find is the time involved isnt thousands or even millions of years but billions.
I know our scientists are doing the best damn job to get an accurate report on this rock but there could be factors we havent even considered.
If we knew the origin of life we would then know what to look for on the planet Mars to see if the same conditions were met over there.What I do know is this helps my website(www.thedramapod.com) as my team and I will be releasing our own  modern audiodrama of war of the worlds this year, thanks to this rock it doesnt entirely debunk the theory of life on mars.Ill be keeping a close eye on this story</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767656</id>
	<title>Re:I'd love to talk to someone knowledgeable about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263496200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You left off option C) The media chooses to focus on statements made by scientists outside of academia and not subject peer-review to build up there story</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You left off option C ) The media chooses to focus on statements made by scientists outside of academia and not subject peer-review to build up there story</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You left off option C) The media chooses to focus on statements made by scientists outside of academia and not subject peer-review to build up there story</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766238</id>
	<title>Re:My psychic prediction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263491580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How does this effect the Drake equation?  Sure, it would alter an input, but that's hardly annihilation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How does this effect the Drake equation ?
Sure , it would alter an input , but that 's hardly annihilation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does this effect the Drake equation?
Sure, it would alter an input, but that's hardly annihilation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30776648</id>
	<title>Re:Wait, huh?</title>
	<author>IrquiM</author>
	<datestamp>1263551220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're just not familiar with the Law of Large Numbers</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're just not familiar with the Law of Large Numbers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're just not familiar with the Law of Large Numbers</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768692</id>
	<title>Re:Life on Mars is impossible...</title>
	<author>rubycodez</author>
	<datestamp>1263499380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>nonsense, RNA origin is termed a "hypothesis" by scientists, not even a theory because of huge problems it presents.  One is difficulty in experiments to synthesize activated RNA nucleotides wcapable of self-polymerization.  So there are more plausible alternatives raised such as other less complex nucleic acids: Peptide nucleic acid (PNA), Threose nucleic acid (TNA) or maybe Glycerol nucleic acid (GNA).</p><p>And you speculation about Martian conditions more than 3.5 Gya ago is very humorous indeed, call NASA up and save them billions of dollars on the planned probes to ascertain early Mars  geophysics and topology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>nonsense , RNA origin is termed a " hypothesis " by scientists , not even a theory because of huge problems it presents .
One is difficulty in experiments to synthesize activated RNA nucleotides wcapable of self-polymerization .
So there are more plausible alternatives raised such as other less complex nucleic acids : Peptide nucleic acid ( PNA ) , Threose nucleic acid ( TNA ) or maybe Glycerol nucleic acid ( GNA ) .And you speculation about Martian conditions more than 3.5 Gya ago is very humorous indeed , call NASA up and save them billions of dollars on the planned probes to ascertain early Mars geophysics and topology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nonsense, RNA origin is termed a "hypothesis" by scientists, not even a theory because of huge problems it presents.
One is difficulty in experiments to synthesize activated RNA nucleotides wcapable of self-polymerization.
So there are more plausible alternatives raised such as other less complex nucleic acids: Peptide nucleic acid (PNA), Threose nucleic acid (TNA) or maybe Glycerol nucleic acid (GNA).And you speculation about Martian conditions more than 3.5 Gya ago is very humorous indeed, call NASA up and save them billions of dollars on the planned probes to ascertain early Mars  geophysics and topology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765932</id>
	<title>I'd love to talk to someone knowledgeable about...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263490560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...this topic.  Any here on Slashdot?</p><p>For example, how did we determine that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan\_Hills\_84001" title="wikipedia.org">Allan Hills 84001</a> [wikipedia.org] came from Mars and not anywhere else?  Not even a Mars-like planet in a nearby solar system?  How?</p><p>How do we know that the signs of life on that rock are from before it was landed, rather than after?  I see wikipedia mention that 'some argue', but there's almost no meat on these bones.</p><p>There are more questions, but I guess I'm uncomfortable with the word 'prove'.  If this were in a court of law, for example, all of this would be 'circumstantial'.  There generally needs to be a lot of it, and it needs to be compelling, before this sort of evidence would get a verdict.  This leads me to suspect one of these scenarios:</p><p>A) There's more detail here.  (I'm rooting for this one)</p><p>B) The scientific word 'prove' isn't the same as other uses of 'prove' (which would be sad, since they already have their own words - e.g. hypothesis)</p><p>Anyway if you either are a third party with sources or someone who actually works with this kind of thing, please do comment below.  I'm in the mood to learn something today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...this topic .
Any here on Slashdot ? For example , how did we determine that Allan Hills 84001 [ wikipedia.org ] came from Mars and not anywhere else ?
Not even a Mars-like planet in a nearby solar system ?
How ? How do we know that the signs of life on that rock are from before it was landed , rather than after ?
I see wikipedia mention that 'some argue ' , but there 's almost no meat on these bones.There are more questions , but I guess I 'm uncomfortable with the word 'prove' .
If this were in a court of law , for example , all of this would be 'circumstantial' .
There generally needs to be a lot of it , and it needs to be compelling , before this sort of evidence would get a verdict .
This leads me to suspect one of these scenarios : A ) There 's more detail here .
( I 'm rooting for this one ) B ) The scientific word 'prove ' is n't the same as other uses of 'prove ' ( which would be sad , since they already have their own words - e.g .
hypothesis ) Anyway if you either are a third party with sources or someone who actually works with this kind of thing , please do comment below .
I 'm in the mood to learn something today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...this topic.
Any here on Slashdot?For example, how did we determine that Allan Hills 84001 [wikipedia.org] came from Mars and not anywhere else?
Not even a Mars-like planet in a nearby solar system?
How?How do we know that the signs of life on that rock are from before it was landed, rather than after?
I see wikipedia mention that 'some argue', but there's almost no meat on these bones.There are more questions, but I guess I'm uncomfortable with the word 'prove'.
If this were in a court of law, for example, all of this would be 'circumstantial'.
There generally needs to be a lot of it, and it needs to be compelling, before this sort of evidence would get a verdict.
This leads me to suspect one of these scenarios:A) There's more detail here.
(I'm rooting for this one)B) The scientific word 'prove' isn't the same as other uses of 'prove' (which would be sad, since they already have their own words - e.g.
hypothesis)Anyway if you either are a third party with sources or someone who actually works with this kind of thing, please do comment below.
I'm in the mood to learn something today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30776660</id>
	<title>Re:My psychic prediction</title>
	<author>wdef</author>
	<datestamp>1263551460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The only real reason for life to organize into multi cellular structures that I can think of is to build radio telescopes and look for other clusters of cells that have done the same on other worlds.</p></div><p>I doubt that very much.  There must be a thermodynamic motivation for the development of multicellular organisms despite the fact they are negentropic (trap information) - living organisms metabolize energy to maintain structure and information (and so don't decay).

Your explanation means assuming a mystical anthropocentric driving force to evolution otherwise it's nonsensical - maybe there is one but can it be proved?  How can the existence of multi cellular organisms on other planets exert selection pressure here (unless they invade)?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only real reason for life to organize into multi cellular structures that I can think of is to build radio telescopes and look for other clusters of cells that have done the same on other worlds.I doubt that very much .
There must be a thermodynamic motivation for the development of multicellular organisms despite the fact they are negentropic ( trap information ) - living organisms metabolize energy to maintain structure and information ( and so do n't decay ) .
Your explanation means assuming a mystical anthropocentric driving force to evolution otherwise it 's nonsensical - maybe there is one but can it be proved ?
How can the existence of multi cellular organisms on other planets exert selection pressure here ( unless they invade ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only real reason for life to organize into multi cellular structures that I can think of is to build radio telescopes and look for other clusters of cells that have done the same on other worlds.I doubt that very much.
There must be a thermodynamic motivation for the development of multicellular organisms despite the fact they are negentropic (trap information) - living organisms metabolize energy to maintain structure and information (and so don't decay).
Your explanation means assuming a mystical anthropocentric driving force to evolution otherwise it's nonsensical - maybe there is one but can it be proved?
How can the existence of multi cellular organisms on other planets exert selection pressure here (unless they invade)?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30769358</id>
	<title>Re:I'd love to talk to someone knowledgeable about</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1263501600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Most scientific study is based on the Popper philosophy of disproving something rather than proving its opposite.</i></p><p>Not so.  Popper's ideas apply to a very narrow scope of actual science.  Theories can sometimes be disproved by predictive failure, and for reasons that aren't clear Popperians want this to be the only process of proof or disproof that science has, although that claim is obviously nonsense.  In particular, the existence of things can be proven by observation of those things.</p><p>Admittedly what constitutes an "observation" is complex and subtle, as this case shows.  And there also many cases where we disprove the existence of something (n-rays, phlogiston and caloric for example, do not exist, and we proved this by experiment in the perfectly ordinary sense of "proof" that everyone including scientists uses all the time, and is only disputed by sophmoronic philosophers.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most scientific study is based on the Popper philosophy of disproving something rather than proving its opposite.Not so .
Popper 's ideas apply to a very narrow scope of actual science .
Theories can sometimes be disproved by predictive failure , and for reasons that are n't clear Popperians want this to be the only process of proof or disproof that science has , although that claim is obviously nonsense .
In particular , the existence of things can be proven by observation of those things.Admittedly what constitutes an " observation " is complex and subtle , as this case shows .
And there also many cases where we disprove the existence of something ( n-rays , phlogiston and caloric for example , do not exist , and we proved this by experiment in the perfectly ordinary sense of " proof " that everyone including scientists uses all the time , and is only disputed by sophmoronic philosophers .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most scientific study is based on the Popper philosophy of disproving something rather than proving its opposite.Not so.
Popper's ideas apply to a very narrow scope of actual science.
Theories can sometimes be disproved by predictive failure, and for reasons that aren't clear Popperians want this to be the only process of proof or disproof that science has, although that claim is obviously nonsense.
In particular, the existence of things can be proven by observation of those things.Admittedly what constitutes an "observation" is complex and subtle, as this case shows.
And there also many cases where we disprove the existence of something (n-rays, phlogiston and caloric for example, do not exist, and we proved this by experiment in the perfectly ordinary sense of "proof" that everyone including scientists uses all the time, and is only disputed by sophmoronic philosophers.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767428</id>
	<title>Re:Wait, huh?</title>
	<author>pclminion</author>
	<datestamp>1263495600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We don't have 3 such meteorites. There are almost certainly millions of these rocks. The fact that we've found any of them at all is evidence that there are probably a lot of them. It's like finding exoplanets. You're looking for a speck of dust in the huge universe, and you find one -- basically means these specks must be everywhere.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't have 3 such meteorites .
There are almost certainly millions of these rocks .
The fact that we 've found any of them at all is evidence that there are probably a lot of them .
It 's like finding exoplanets .
You 're looking for a speck of dust in the huge universe , and you find one -- basically means these specks must be everywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't have 3 such meteorites.
There are almost certainly millions of these rocks.
The fact that we've found any of them at all is evidence that there are probably a lot of them.
It's like finding exoplanets.
You're looking for a speck of dust in the huge universe, and you find one -- basically means these specks must be everywhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766004</id>
	<title>Re:That's right, bitches.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263490800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i feel your excitement!</htmltext>
<tokenext>i feel your excitement !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i feel your excitement!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766626</id>
	<title>Re:I'd love to talk to someone knowledgeable about</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1263492840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> For example, how did we determine that Allan Hills 84001 came from Mars and not anywhere else? Not even a Mars-like planet in a nearby solar system?</p></div> </blockquote><p>Isotope ratios match those found by the 1970's Viking landers. Each planet has a different set of ratios, sort of like a female's breast-waste-hip measurements: 38-24-36 etc. (don't ask why I thot of that analogy first).</p><p>Occam's Razor says they are from Mars. Having 3+ meteorites that all match the Mars ratios are far more likely to have been blasted from Mars than some planet outside our solar system that happens to match Mars's ratios. But even discovering life from a distant planet is an important discovery in itself.</p><blockquote><div><p>How do we know that the signs of life on that rock are from before it was landed, rather than after?</p></div></blockquote><p>I believe there are at least 3 parts to this argument. The first is that all 3 meteorites have similar microbe fossils despite being from different places on Earth. Second, the frequency and composition of outside contamination would be different on the surface than in the interior of the rocks if contaminated. But the distribution is allegedly fairly uniform. Third, the chemical or structural pattern would be different if the life came after-the-fact. But, I don't know the details of this one. Hopefully the to-be-released paper will clarify these items.</p><p>They can tell by radiation damage patterns that a given rock has been in space relatively recently. This means that likely the rocks have been close to the surface of Earth rather than being deep underground. But the Mars fossils resemble underground life (as found on Earth).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For example , how did we determine that Allan Hills 84001 came from Mars and not anywhere else ?
Not even a Mars-like planet in a nearby solar system ?
Isotope ratios match those found by the 1970 's Viking landers .
Each planet has a different set of ratios , sort of like a female 's breast-waste-hip measurements : 38-24-36 etc .
( do n't ask why I thot of that analogy first ) .Occam 's Razor says they are from Mars .
Having 3 + meteorites that all match the Mars ratios are far more likely to have been blasted from Mars than some planet outside our solar system that happens to match Mars 's ratios .
But even discovering life from a distant planet is an important discovery in itself.How do we know that the signs of life on that rock are from before it was landed , rather than after ? I believe there are at least 3 parts to this argument .
The first is that all 3 meteorites have similar microbe fossils despite being from different places on Earth .
Second , the frequency and composition of outside contamination would be different on the surface than in the interior of the rocks if contaminated .
But the distribution is allegedly fairly uniform .
Third , the chemical or structural pattern would be different if the life came after-the-fact .
But , I do n't know the details of this one .
Hopefully the to-be-released paper will clarify these items.They can tell by radiation damage patterns that a given rock has been in space relatively recently .
This means that likely the rocks have been close to the surface of Earth rather than being deep underground .
But the Mars fossils resemble underground life ( as found on Earth ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> For example, how did we determine that Allan Hills 84001 came from Mars and not anywhere else?
Not even a Mars-like planet in a nearby solar system?
Isotope ratios match those found by the 1970's Viking landers.
Each planet has a different set of ratios, sort of like a female's breast-waste-hip measurements: 38-24-36 etc.
(don't ask why I thot of that analogy first).Occam's Razor says they are from Mars.
Having 3+ meteorites that all match the Mars ratios are far more likely to have been blasted from Mars than some planet outside our solar system that happens to match Mars's ratios.
But even discovering life from a distant planet is an important discovery in itself.How do we know that the signs of life on that rock are from before it was landed, rather than after?I believe there are at least 3 parts to this argument.
The first is that all 3 meteorites have similar microbe fossils despite being from different places on Earth.
Second, the frequency and composition of outside contamination would be different on the surface than in the interior of the rocks if contaminated.
But the distribution is allegedly fairly uniform.
Third, the chemical or structural pattern would be different if the life came after-the-fact.
But, I don't know the details of this one.
Hopefully the to-be-released paper will clarify these items.They can tell by radiation damage patterns that a given rock has been in space relatively recently.
This means that likely the rocks have been close to the surface of Earth rather than being deep underground.
But the Mars fossils resemble underground life (as found on Earth).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766266</id>
	<title>Life on Mars is impossible...</title>
	<author>dtjohnson</author>
	<datestamp>1263491640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We know that life arose from self-assembling molecules formed in a primitive thick atmosphere that rained into a primordial ocean where membranes wrapped around RNA packages to create unicellular life which eventually clustered and evolved into...us.  Mars has not had the atmosphere with methane and ammonia needed for amino acids to form and, if it did indeed have oceans, they were too small, too shallow, and far too short-lived to have allowed life to have evolved.  Ergo...life on Mars is...impossible.  Cleared that right up for ya.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We know that life arose from self-assembling molecules formed in a primitive thick atmosphere that rained into a primordial ocean where membranes wrapped around RNA packages to create unicellular life which eventually clustered and evolved into...us .
Mars has not had the atmosphere with methane and ammonia needed for amino acids to form and , if it did indeed have oceans , they were too small , too shallow , and far too short-lived to have allowed life to have evolved .
Ergo...life on Mars is...impossible .
Cleared that right up for ya .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We know that life arose from self-assembling molecules formed in a primitive thick atmosphere that rained into a primordial ocean where membranes wrapped around RNA packages to create unicellular life which eventually clustered and evolved into...us.
Mars has not had the atmosphere with methane and ammonia needed for amino acids to form and, if it did indeed have oceans, they were too small, too shallow, and far too short-lived to have allowed life to have evolved.
Ergo...life on Mars is...impossible.
Cleared that right up for ya.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30773086</id>
	<title>Re:My psychic prediction</title>
	<author>groslyunderpaid</author>
	<datestamp>1263473820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We know that there are trillions of trillions of stars in the universe</p></div><p>

Hold your flaimbait and troll buttons, I'm genuinely curious.<br> <br>

I've always wondered when people say this, doesn't science actually disprove this? Don't get me wrong, I have ADD and to say I wasn't paying attention in science would be a gross understatement, but isn't there something about the speed of light and all that that basically says we surmise that millions of years ago, there were trillions of stars, and the light is just now reaching us? (or something like that...) Which would mean there is no way to see stars that still exists now? I mean, I'm sure there are other tests and such voodoo you can do besides simply looking, but the statement just seems a little off.<br> <br>

Not only that, but how can you <b>know</b> there are trillions and trillions of stars? Unless of course that was hyperbole. I mean, have you counted them? Can anyone even count that high? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "we theorize..." or "we believe..." or something to leave a window open that you could either:<br>
a) be just plain wrong<br>
b) be misguided in a calculation, etc, and figure it out and correct it 10 years down the road (like eggs are bad for you, no they're not, yes they are)<br>
c) some other thing that is escaping my limited attention span<br> <br>

I mean, when you try to poke fun of the creationist crowd for saying "We KNOW God created the world 6000 years ago", you don't do yourself any favors by saying "We know that X does/did/is/was Y" and then 5-10 years down the road, or even 50-100, coming back and saying "Well actually we didn't realize that Q has an effect on X and X actually does/did/is/was Z"...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We know that there are trillions of trillions of stars in the universe Hold your flaimbait and troll buttons , I 'm genuinely curious .
I 've always wondered when people say this , does n't science actually disprove this ?
Do n't get me wrong , I have ADD and to say I was n't paying attention in science would be a gross understatement , but is n't there something about the speed of light and all that that basically says we surmise that millions of years ago , there were trillions of stars , and the light is just now reaching us ?
( or something like that... ) Which would mean there is no way to see stars that still exists now ?
I mean , I 'm sure there are other tests and such voodoo you can do besides simply looking , but the statement just seems a little off .
Not only that , but how can you know there are trillions and trillions of stars ?
Unless of course that was hyperbole .
I mean , have you counted them ?
Can anyone even count that high ?
Would n't it be more accurate to say " we theorize... " or " we believe... " or something to leave a window open that you could either : a ) be just plain wrong b ) be misguided in a calculation , etc , and figure it out and correct it 10 years down the road ( like eggs are bad for you , no they 're not , yes they are ) c ) some other thing that is escaping my limited attention span I mean , when you try to poke fun of the creationist crowd for saying " We KNOW God created the world 6000 years ago " , you do n't do yourself any favors by saying " We know that X does/did/is/was Y " and then 5-10 years down the road , or even 50-100 , coming back and saying " Well actually we did n't realize that Q has an effect on X and X actually does/did/is/was Z " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We know that there are trillions of trillions of stars in the universe

Hold your flaimbait and troll buttons, I'm genuinely curious.
I've always wondered when people say this, doesn't science actually disprove this?
Don't get me wrong, I have ADD and to say I wasn't paying attention in science would be a gross understatement, but isn't there something about the speed of light and all that that basically says we surmise that millions of years ago, there were trillions of stars, and the light is just now reaching us?
(or something like that...) Which would mean there is no way to see stars that still exists now?
I mean, I'm sure there are other tests and such voodoo you can do besides simply looking, but the statement just seems a little off.
Not only that, but how can you know there are trillions and trillions of stars?
Unless of course that was hyperbole.
I mean, have you counted them?
Can anyone even count that high?
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "we theorize..." or "we believe..." or something to leave a window open that you could either:
a) be just plain wrong
b) be misguided in a calculation, etc, and figure it out and correct it 10 years down the road (like eggs are bad for you, no they're not, yes they are)
c) some other thing that is escaping my limited attention span 

I mean, when you try to poke fun of the creationist crowd for saying "We KNOW God created the world 6000 years ago", you don't do yourself any favors by saying "We know that X does/did/is/was Y" and then 5-10 years down the road, or even 50-100, coming back and saying "Well actually we didn't realize that Q has an effect on X and X actually does/did/is/was Z"...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765698</id>
	<title>My psychic prediction</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1263489840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just had a psychic vision of the future. In my vision, this test ended up either producing negative or inconclusive results--once again disappointing the millions of believers who just cannot accept that, for all practical intents and purposes, we here on earth are all alone in the great big dark. I also see myself posting a link this this very post, a year or so from now, in yet another similar thread that has the believers once again futilely hoping that the discovery of life out there is "very, very close."</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just had a psychic vision of the future .
In my vision , this test ended up either producing negative or inconclusive results--once again disappointing the millions of believers who just can not accept that , for all practical intents and purposes , we here on earth are all alone in the great big dark .
I also see myself posting a link this this very post , a year or so from now , in yet another similar thread that has the believers once again futilely hoping that the discovery of life out there is " very , very close .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just had a psychic vision of the future.
In my vision, this test ended up either producing negative or inconclusive results--once again disappointing the millions of believers who just cannot accept that, for all practical intents and purposes, we here on earth are all alone in the great big dark.
I also see myself posting a link this this very post, a year or so from now, in yet another similar thread that has the believers once again futilely hoping that the discovery of life out there is "very, very close.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30770378</id>
	<title>No, the cat doesn't "got my tongue."</title>
	<author>Impy the Impiuos Imp</author>
	<datestamp>1263462300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ETA to a televangelist showing how the Bible predicted life on other worlds:  2 days and counting.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:rolleyes:</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ETA to a televangelist showing how the Bible predicted life on other worlds : 2 days and counting .
: rolleyes :</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ETA to a televangelist showing how the Bible predicted life on other worlds:  2 days and counting.
:rolleyes:</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767988</id>
	<title>Re:Very close to proving is not proving...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263497280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, really? To date we have two Martian rovers on the planet and the Phoenix lander. We also managed to land the Viking 1 and Viking 2 probes and a Soviet probe that transmitted for 22 seconds and quit out on us. So, to clarify, we have 5-6 successful surface missions for an entire planet that lost its atmosphere millions of years ago. Millions of years is a long time for the geophysical structure of the planet to change/morph/transform. It's not a big stretch of the imagination to think that any signs of life (fossils, some kind of living bacteria, etc) could have been buried awhile ago. There is also the possibility that any life that still does exist on Mars (or any signs of life) exist in a very small niche area of the planet, where the conditions are just right. So we have a combined 5 active spacecraft to explore an planet's entire surface and you are surprised that we haven't happened to stumble upon the types of evidence we are looking for? (which could also be a limiting factor). Just to put things in perspective, mankind has been actively wandering around this particular planet for more than 15,000 years and there are still a few places we haven't managed to explore. I think we can be forgiven for not finding life on a different planet in the last 40 years of exploration just yet. Sheesh. Why was this modded anything but 'retarded, unsound cynicism?'</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , really ?
To date we have two Martian rovers on the planet and the Phoenix lander .
We also managed to land the Viking 1 and Viking 2 probes and a Soviet probe that transmitted for 22 seconds and quit out on us .
So , to clarify , we have 5-6 successful surface missions for an entire planet that lost its atmosphere millions of years ago .
Millions of years is a long time for the geophysical structure of the planet to change/morph/transform .
It 's not a big stretch of the imagination to think that any signs of life ( fossils , some kind of living bacteria , etc ) could have been buried awhile ago .
There is also the possibility that any life that still does exist on Mars ( or any signs of life ) exist in a very small niche area of the planet , where the conditions are just right .
So we have a combined 5 active spacecraft to explore an planet 's entire surface and you are surprised that we have n't happened to stumble upon the types of evidence we are looking for ?
( which could also be a limiting factor ) .
Just to put things in perspective , mankind has been actively wandering around this particular planet for more than 15,000 years and there are still a few places we have n't managed to explore .
I think we can be forgiven for not finding life on a different planet in the last 40 years of exploration just yet .
Sheesh. Why was this modded anything but 'retarded , unsound cynicism ?
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, really?
To date we have two Martian rovers on the planet and the Phoenix lander.
We also managed to land the Viking 1 and Viking 2 probes and a Soviet probe that transmitted for 22 seconds and quit out on us.
So, to clarify, we have 5-6 successful surface missions for an entire planet that lost its atmosphere millions of years ago.
Millions of years is a long time for the geophysical structure of the planet to change/morph/transform.
It's not a big stretch of the imagination to think that any signs of life (fossils, some kind of living bacteria, etc) could have been buried awhile ago.
There is also the possibility that any life that still does exist on Mars (or any signs of life) exist in a very small niche area of the planet, where the conditions are just right.
So we have a combined 5 active spacecraft to explore an planet's entire surface and you are surprised that we haven't happened to stumble upon the types of evidence we are looking for?
(which could also be a limiting factor).
Just to put things in perspective, mankind has been actively wandering around this particular planet for more than 15,000 years and there are still a few places we haven't managed to explore.
I think we can be forgiven for not finding life on a different planet in the last 40 years of exploration just yet.
Sheesh. Why was this modded anything but 'retarded, unsound cynicism?
'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766652</id>
	<title>Re:Very close to proving is not proving...</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1263492960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not life, evidence of former life. There's a lot of evidence that Mars once was much more hospitable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not life , evidence of former life .
There 's a lot of evidence that Mars once was much more hospitable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not life, evidence of former life.
There's a lot of evidence that Mars once was much more hospitable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766300</id>
	<title>Re:My psychic prediction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263491700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, I'm telling you that intelligent, coincidental, perceptible alien life must be pretty damn rare. And the distances involved would be so vast that even finding them (much less communicating with them) is probably out of the question. Is it out there *somewhere*? Probably. Will we ever see it? Extremely unlikely. "Coincidental" and "perceptible" are probably the trickiest parts of finding intelligent alien life, BTW (humans have only used perceptible radio waves for 100 years out of this planet's four billion year history, for example). So, like I said, for all practical intents and purposes we're all alone in the vast empty. Every other planet in our solar system has so far proven to be more sterile than an operating theater, devoid of even the simplest life.</p><p>Well, there *are* those aliens who keep stealing out rednecks for anal probes. But, aside from those guys, no one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , I 'm telling you that intelligent , coincidental , perceptible alien life must be pretty damn rare .
And the distances involved would be so vast that even finding them ( much less communicating with them ) is probably out of the question .
Is it out there * somewhere * ?
Probably. Will we ever see it ?
Extremely unlikely .
" Coincidental " and " perceptible " are probably the trickiest parts of finding intelligent alien life , BTW ( humans have only used perceptible radio waves for 100 years out of this planet 's four billion year history , for example ) .
So , like I said , for all practical intents and purposes we 're all alone in the vast empty .
Every other planet in our solar system has so far proven to be more sterile than an operating theater , devoid of even the simplest life.Well , there * are * those aliens who keep stealing out rednecks for anal probes .
But , aside from those guys , no one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, I'm telling you that intelligent, coincidental, perceptible alien life must be pretty damn rare.
And the distances involved would be so vast that even finding them (much less communicating with them) is probably out of the question.
Is it out there *somewhere*?
Probably. Will we ever see it?
Extremely unlikely.
"Coincidental" and "perceptible" are probably the trickiest parts of finding intelligent alien life, BTW (humans have only used perceptible radio waves for 100 years out of this planet's four billion year history, for example).
So, like I said, for all practical intents and purposes we're all alone in the vast empty.
Every other planet in our solar system has so far proven to be more sterile than an operating theater, devoid of even the simplest life.Well, there *are* those aliens who keep stealing out rednecks for anal probes.
But, aside from those guys, no one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766750</id>
	<title>Re:Life on Mars is impossible...</title>
	<author>digitig</author>
	<datestamp>1263493200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know that I arose from a woman called Joan and a man called Vincent. My cousin didn't have a mother called Joan or a father called Vincent, threfore she can't possibly exist. Or maybe, just <em>maybe</em>, just because things happened one way once doesn't mean that's the <em>only</em> way they can happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know that I arose from a woman called Joan and a man called Vincent .
My cousin did n't have a mother called Joan or a father called Vincent , threfore she ca n't possibly exist .
Or maybe , just maybe , just because things happened one way once does n't mean that 's the only way they can happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know that I arose from a woman called Joan and a man called Vincent.
My cousin didn't have a mother called Joan or a father called Vincent, threfore she can't possibly exist.
Or maybe, just maybe, just because things happened one way once doesn't mean that's the only way they can happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766478</id>
	<title>Re:Very close to proving is not proving...</title>
	<author>rhsanborn</author>
	<datestamp>1263492300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And I don't believe the mars rovers are equipped with electron microscopes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And I do n't believe the mars rovers are equipped with electron microscopes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I don't believe the mars rovers are equipped with electron microscopes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30771070</id>
	<title>Crank stuff indeed</title>
	<author>QuoteMstr</author>
	<datestamp>1263464760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From what <a href="http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/overview.html#Unresolved\_Approaches:" title="nasa.gov">I can tell</a> [nasa.gov], the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics lab investigates crackpot theories on the off chance that some might have merit. I'm not convinced that this exercise is <i>completely</i> without merit.</p><p>The rest of NASA's science work, however, appears to be up the same standards you'd find anywhere else. Look at all the planetary science and material science work: you can't fake that. NASA's results would have been discredited long ago if they weren't engaging in legitimate research.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I can tell [ nasa.gov ] , the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics lab investigates crackpot theories on the off chance that some might have merit .
I 'm not convinced that this exercise is completely without merit.The rest of NASA 's science work , however , appears to be up the same standards you 'd find anywhere else .
Look at all the planetary science and material science work : you ca n't fake that .
NASA 's results would have been discredited long ago if they were n't engaging in legitimate research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I can tell [nasa.gov], the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics lab investigates crackpot theories on the off chance that some might have merit.
I'm not convinced that this exercise is completely without merit.The rest of NASA's science work, however, appears to be up the same standards you'd find anywhere else.
Look at all the planetary science and material science work: you can't fake that.
NASA's results would have been discredited long ago if they weren't engaging in legitimate research.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766454</id>
	<title>Re:Very close to proving is not proving...</title>
	<author>phoenix321</author>
	<datestamp>1263492240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because we are only rolling around our RC toys and they lack an electron microscope powerful enough?</p><p>But we will never get to Mars, because we need all funds we ever had on other things, like that interesting branch of science where we can clearly prove anything and where isolated experiments to the contrary don't disprove anthing. The science there is settled, folks. For. Ever.</p><p>Now excuse me while save some CO2 and pay some taxes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because we are only rolling around our RC toys and they lack an electron microscope powerful enough ? But we will never get to Mars , because we need all funds we ever had on other things , like that interesting branch of science where we can clearly prove anything and where isolated experiments to the contrary do n't disprove anthing .
The science there is settled , folks .
For. Ever.Now excuse me while save some CO2 and pay some taxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because we are only rolling around our RC toys and they lack an electron microscope powerful enough?But we will never get to Mars, because we need all funds we ever had on other things, like that interesting branch of science where we can clearly prove anything and where isolated experiments to the contrary don't disprove anthing.
The science there is settled, folks.
For. Ever.Now excuse me while save some CO2 and pay some taxes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765962</id>
	<title>British Museum</title>
	<author>trybywrench</author>
	<datestamp>1263490620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not surprised the meteorites sat in the British Museum for so long before being given a good once over. There's so much crap in there it would blow you away. Their section on Egypt is bigger and better than the whole King Tut exhibit tour. hehe it's no wonder other countries are like "um can we have our stuff back?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not surprised the meteorites sat in the British Museum for so long before being given a good once over .
There 's so much crap in there it would blow you away .
Their section on Egypt is bigger and better than the whole King Tut exhibit tour .
hehe it 's no wonder other countries are like " um can we have our stuff back ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not surprised the meteorites sat in the British Museum for so long before being given a good once over.
There's so much crap in there it would blow you away.
Their section on Egypt is bigger and better than the whole King Tut exhibit tour.
hehe it's no wonder other countries are like "um can we have our stuff back?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766236</id>
	<title>Re:Very close to proving is not proving...</title>
	<author>Nadaka</author>
	<datestamp>1263491580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because we have carefully studied every bit of the pieces of mars available on earth with the best scientific laboratories available. Whereas we have only looked at a minuscule fraction of mars on site, and done so with tools light enough to transport to mars.</p><p>Its like asking why we can not prove the nature of human metabolic functions with nothing more than a thermometer in your behind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because we have carefully studied every bit of the pieces of mars available on earth with the best scientific laboratories available .
Whereas we have only looked at a minuscule fraction of mars on site , and done so with tools light enough to transport to mars.Its like asking why we can not prove the nature of human metabolic functions with nothing more than a thermometer in your behind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because we have carefully studied every bit of the pieces of mars available on earth with the best scientific laboratories available.
Whereas we have only looked at a minuscule fraction of mars on site, and done so with tools light enough to transport to mars.Its like asking why we can not prove the nature of human metabolic functions with nothing more than a thermometer in your behind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767630</id>
	<title>Re:My psychic prediction</title>
	<author>ryanvm</author>
	<datestamp>1263496140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually - it would be less amazing than you think. There's a good chance that if there had been life on Mars, it made it's way here hitchhiking on meteorites. The gravity trip from Mars to Earth is pretty easy and there have been a number of Martian meteorites discovered on Earth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually - it would be less amazing than you think .
There 's a good chance that if there had been life on Mars , it made it 's way here hitchhiking on meteorites .
The gravity trip from Mars to Earth is pretty easy and there have been a number of Martian meteorites discovered on Earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually - it would be less amazing than you think.
There's a good chance that if there had been life on Mars, it made it's way here hitchhiking on meteorites.
The gravity trip from Mars to Earth is pretty easy and there have been a number of Martian meteorites discovered on Earth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767594</id>
	<title>Re:My psychic prediction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263496020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The universe is just too big and vast for this to be the only planet with life on it.</p><p>Estimates are what these days for # of galaxies?  Hundreds of billions?  You telling me we're the only ones out here?</p><p>I don't buy it.</p></div><p>Life, maybe, but would there be multi cellular life?</p><p>For the first 3 billion years of life on earth, there were only single celled organisms. This time span is in the same order of magnitude as the estimated timespan that life is possible on earth. If life on an earth-like ends a little early or starts a little late, life may never evolve from the goo stage.</p><p>And think of some of the extremely rare occurrences that need to coincide to make it possible for life to exist so long on a planet.</p><p>Jupiter has kept the inner planets to some extent from bombardment, by sucking up asteroids in its enormous gravity well. Without this long distance Jupiter, the earliest time that life would have been able to exist might have been pushed forward significantly. In extra solar planetary systems discovered so far, it seems that a hot Jupiter, close to the star, appears to be the norm.</p><p>Liquid water isn't stable on normal rocky planets. Too far from the star, and it just freezes. Too close to the star and water gets photolysed into hydrogen and oxygen, the oxygen getting bound in the soil and the hydrogen getting stripped away in the solar wind. The earth still has some of its water left, because it is unusually dense and has a magnetic field that protects it somewhat. Both the density and the magnetic field were made possible by an unlikely event: the early earth collided with another planet of similar size. Much of the lighter material got ejected and formed the moon in a low orbit, while much of the denser, metallic material formed the earth. Other planets in the solar system have no magnetic field to speak of. Venus lost its water due to being too close to the sun, Mars lost it due to its low density. Our large metallic core has at least one other effect essential for long lasting life: decay of radio active isotopes keeps it warm and liquid, and keeps the crust thin enough for plate tectonics to be possible. As life does its thing, CO2 gets locked up in the crust in the form of limestone and fossil carbon. Without plate tectonics and the resulting vulcanism, this carbon would not have been recycled back into the atmosphere, causing early life to run out of fuel. As the sun was a lot cooler than it is today, the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere might have caused the early earth to freeze. As the sun gradually gets hotter over the course of its lifespan, this also puts an upper limit to our existence. About a billion years from now, it will likely be too hot for liquid water to exist on earth. A billion years seems like a long time, but that would mean that some two thirds of the time period in which life can exist on earth had already passed before the first multi cellular life forms are known to have arisen.</p><p>Our unusually large moon has also served to stabilize the rotation of the earth. Without it, the earth may occasionally have been near-sterilized whenever one rotational axis pointed towards the sun, causing one hemisphere to burn to a crisp, and the other to wither in a frozen darkness for god knows how many thousands of years. The moon, when life was in its early stages, was a lot closer than it is now, causing the difference between low and high tide to be in the order of maybe a mile. This would have covered much of the earth's surface with tidal pools at some point in the day, and tidal pools are believed to have been pivotal in the development of photo synthesis. Other planets we know of have moons that are far smaller in size, relative to the planet they orbit.</p><p>The argument that I find most convincing is the observation that even here on earth, multi cellular life seems to hold only a tenuous advantage over good old single celled organisms. Single celled organisms have been dominating the world ever since life began, about 3.5 billion years ago. The majority of all bio mass on earth still consists of single celled organisms, we just don't really think about that fact, because our senses are adapted to observing multi cellular life. The only real reason for life to organize into multi cellular structures that I can think of is to build radio telescopes and look for other clusters of cells that have done the same on other worlds.</p><p>And finally, the universe may be too big and vast for all these unlikely events to have coincided just once, but most of the universe cannot affect us. Anything that happens more than 4.5 billion light years away is so distant that information takes more time to get from there to here than the total amount of time that life is likely possible on earth. Of course the distance at which a device built by a complex clump of cooperating cells can detect a signal from naturally occurring background noise is a lot shorter than that. I vaguely recall reading that a few hundred light years would be the maximum for that. Within that distance, you're no longer talking about an unimaginably large number of stars, but only tens of thousands of stars.</p><p>Disclaimer: I'm not a scientist, I just like to rain on your parade<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The universe is just too big and vast for this to be the only planet with life on it.Estimates are what these days for # of galaxies ?
Hundreds of billions ?
You telling me we 're the only ones out here ? I do n't buy it.Life , maybe , but would there be multi cellular life ? For the first 3 billion years of life on earth , there were only single celled organisms .
This time span is in the same order of magnitude as the estimated timespan that life is possible on earth .
If life on an earth-like ends a little early or starts a little late , life may never evolve from the goo stage.And think of some of the extremely rare occurrences that need to coincide to make it possible for life to exist so long on a planet.Jupiter has kept the inner planets to some extent from bombardment , by sucking up asteroids in its enormous gravity well .
Without this long distance Jupiter , the earliest time that life would have been able to exist might have been pushed forward significantly .
In extra solar planetary systems discovered so far , it seems that a hot Jupiter , close to the star , appears to be the norm.Liquid water is n't stable on normal rocky planets .
Too far from the star , and it just freezes .
Too close to the star and water gets photolysed into hydrogen and oxygen , the oxygen getting bound in the soil and the hydrogen getting stripped away in the solar wind .
The earth still has some of its water left , because it is unusually dense and has a magnetic field that protects it somewhat .
Both the density and the magnetic field were made possible by an unlikely event : the early earth collided with another planet of similar size .
Much of the lighter material got ejected and formed the moon in a low orbit , while much of the denser , metallic material formed the earth .
Other planets in the solar system have no magnetic field to speak of .
Venus lost its water due to being too close to the sun , Mars lost it due to its low density .
Our large metallic core has at least one other effect essential for long lasting life : decay of radio active isotopes keeps it warm and liquid , and keeps the crust thin enough for plate tectonics to be possible .
As life does its thing , CO2 gets locked up in the crust in the form of limestone and fossil carbon .
Without plate tectonics and the resulting vulcanism , this carbon would not have been recycled back into the atmosphere , causing early life to run out of fuel .
As the sun was a lot cooler than it is today , the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere might have caused the early earth to freeze .
As the sun gradually gets hotter over the course of its lifespan , this also puts an upper limit to our existence .
About a billion years from now , it will likely be too hot for liquid water to exist on earth .
A billion years seems like a long time , but that would mean that some two thirds of the time period in which life can exist on earth had already passed before the first multi cellular life forms are known to have arisen.Our unusually large moon has also served to stabilize the rotation of the earth .
Without it , the earth may occasionally have been near-sterilized whenever one rotational axis pointed towards the sun , causing one hemisphere to burn to a crisp , and the other to wither in a frozen darkness for god knows how many thousands of years .
The moon , when life was in its early stages , was a lot closer than it is now , causing the difference between low and high tide to be in the order of maybe a mile .
This would have covered much of the earth 's surface with tidal pools at some point in the day , and tidal pools are believed to have been pivotal in the development of photo synthesis .
Other planets we know of have moons that are far smaller in size , relative to the planet they orbit.The argument that I find most convincing is the observation that even here on earth , multi cellular life seems to hold only a tenuous advantage over good old single celled organisms .
Single celled organisms have been dominating the world ever since life began , about 3.5 billion years ago .
The majority of all bio mass on earth still consists of single celled organisms , we just do n't really think about that fact , because our senses are adapted to observing multi cellular life .
The only real reason for life to organize into multi cellular structures that I can think of is to build radio telescopes and look for other clusters of cells that have done the same on other worlds.And finally , the universe may be too big and vast for all these unlikely events to have coincided just once , but most of the universe can not affect us .
Anything that happens more than 4.5 billion light years away is so distant that information takes more time to get from there to here than the total amount of time that life is likely possible on earth .
Of course the distance at which a device built by a complex clump of cooperating cells can detect a signal from naturally occurring background noise is a lot shorter than that .
I vaguely recall reading that a few hundred light years would be the maximum for that .
Within that distance , you 're no longer talking about an unimaginably large number of stars , but only tens of thousands of stars.Disclaimer : I 'm not a scientist , I just like to rain on your parade : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The universe is just too big and vast for this to be the only planet with life on it.Estimates are what these days for # of galaxies?
Hundreds of billions?
You telling me we're the only ones out here?I don't buy it.Life, maybe, but would there be multi cellular life?For the first 3 billion years of life on earth, there were only single celled organisms.
This time span is in the same order of magnitude as the estimated timespan that life is possible on earth.
If life on an earth-like ends a little early or starts a little late, life may never evolve from the goo stage.And think of some of the extremely rare occurrences that need to coincide to make it possible for life to exist so long on a planet.Jupiter has kept the inner planets to some extent from bombardment, by sucking up asteroids in its enormous gravity well.
Without this long distance Jupiter, the earliest time that life would have been able to exist might have been pushed forward significantly.
In extra solar planetary systems discovered so far, it seems that a hot Jupiter, close to the star, appears to be the norm.Liquid water isn't stable on normal rocky planets.
Too far from the star, and it just freezes.
Too close to the star and water gets photolysed into hydrogen and oxygen, the oxygen getting bound in the soil and the hydrogen getting stripped away in the solar wind.
The earth still has some of its water left, because it is unusually dense and has a magnetic field that protects it somewhat.
Both the density and the magnetic field were made possible by an unlikely event: the early earth collided with another planet of similar size.
Much of the lighter material got ejected and formed the moon in a low orbit, while much of the denser, metallic material formed the earth.
Other planets in the solar system have no magnetic field to speak of.
Venus lost its water due to being too close to the sun, Mars lost it due to its low density.
Our large metallic core has at least one other effect essential for long lasting life: decay of radio active isotopes keeps it warm and liquid, and keeps the crust thin enough for plate tectonics to be possible.
As life does its thing, CO2 gets locked up in the crust in the form of limestone and fossil carbon.
Without plate tectonics and the resulting vulcanism, this carbon would not have been recycled back into the atmosphere, causing early life to run out of fuel.
As the sun was a lot cooler than it is today, the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere might have caused the early earth to freeze.
As the sun gradually gets hotter over the course of its lifespan, this also puts an upper limit to our existence.
About a billion years from now, it will likely be too hot for liquid water to exist on earth.
A billion years seems like a long time, but that would mean that some two thirds of the time period in which life can exist on earth had already passed before the first multi cellular life forms are known to have arisen.Our unusually large moon has also served to stabilize the rotation of the earth.
Without it, the earth may occasionally have been near-sterilized whenever one rotational axis pointed towards the sun, causing one hemisphere to burn to a crisp, and the other to wither in a frozen darkness for god knows how many thousands of years.
The moon, when life was in its early stages, was a lot closer than it is now, causing the difference between low and high tide to be in the order of maybe a mile.
This would have covered much of the earth's surface with tidal pools at some point in the day, and tidal pools are believed to have been pivotal in the development of photo synthesis.
Other planets we know of have moons that are far smaller in size, relative to the planet they orbit.The argument that I find most convincing is the observation that even here on earth, multi cellular life seems to hold only a tenuous advantage over good old single celled organisms.
Single celled organisms have been dominating the world ever since life began, about 3.5 billion years ago.
The majority of all bio mass on earth still consists of single celled organisms, we just don't really think about that fact, because our senses are adapted to observing multi cellular life.
The only real reason for life to organize into multi cellular structures that I can think of is to build radio telescopes and look for other clusters of cells that have done the same on other worlds.And finally, the universe may be too big and vast for all these unlikely events to have coincided just once, but most of the universe cannot affect us.
Anything that happens more than 4.5 billion light years away is so distant that information takes more time to get from there to here than the total amount of time that life is likely possible on earth.
Of course the distance at which a device built by a complex clump of cooperating cells can detect a signal from naturally occurring background noise is a lot shorter than that.
I vaguely recall reading that a few hundred light years would be the maximum for that.
Within that distance, you're no longer talking about an unimaginably large number of stars, but only tens of thousands of stars.Disclaimer: I'm not a scientist, I just like to rain on your parade :)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767954</id>
	<title>Re:My psychic prediction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263497160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Contact reference aside, the question which follows is whether the Universe/God is wasting the space, or whether we humans are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Contact reference aside , the question which follows is whether the Universe/God is wasting the space , or whether we humans are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Contact reference aside, the question which follows is whether the Universe/God is wasting the space, or whether we humans are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765930</id>
	<title>Re:My psychic prediction</title>
	<author>Em Emalb</author>
	<datestamp>1263490560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The universe is just too big and vast for this to be the only planet with life on it.</p><p>Estimates are what these days for # of galaxies?  Hundreds of billions?  You telling me we're the only ones out here?</p><p>I don't buy it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The universe is just too big and vast for this to be the only planet with life on it.Estimates are what these days for # of galaxies ?
Hundreds of billions ?
You telling me we 're the only ones out here ? I do n't buy it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The universe is just too big and vast for this to be the only planet with life on it.Estimates are what these days for # of galaxies?
Hundreds of billions?
You telling me we're the only ones out here?I don't buy it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767154</id>
	<title>Re:I'd love to talk to someone knowledgeable about</title>
	<author>iamapizza</author>
	<datestamp>1263494700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It depends on the meteorite being studied.  When a meteorite is discovered, scientists can study it and compare it to moon rocks.  They can compare the composition and makeup of the rock with the moon rocks and they'll find that the meteorites bear a strong resemblance, thus making it <strong>probable</strong> that it came from the moon.
<br> <br>
For Martian meterorites, they can look at a few other things.  You can first check to see if it's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igneous\_rock" title="wikipedia.org">igneous</a> [wikipedia.org].  That indicates that it might have come from a place with molten rock and it solidified at some point.  That in turn indicates that this came from a planetary body.  Now that you've established it came from a planet or a moon and not the asteroid belt, you examine other things.  The meterorite might have gas bubbles in it, so you compare the composition of the gas with your knowledge of the atmosphere of other planets.  In the case of ALH84001, they may have seen that the rock had lots of Fe, like Mars, and that it had gas bubbles which matched what previous landers on the planet may have observed.  They then come to the conclusion that the meteorite in question is <strong>probably</strong> from Mars.
<br> <br>
As for your other questions, the wikipedia article rightly points out that ALH84001 might have been contaminated.  That's why you see articles like this peppered with maybe and probably every few words.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends on the meteorite being studied .
When a meteorite is discovered , scientists can study it and compare it to moon rocks .
They can compare the composition and makeup of the rock with the moon rocks and they 'll find that the meteorites bear a strong resemblance , thus making it probable that it came from the moon .
For Martian meterorites , they can look at a few other things .
You can first check to see if it 's igneous [ wikipedia.org ] .
That indicates that it might have come from a place with molten rock and it solidified at some point .
That in turn indicates that this came from a planetary body .
Now that you 've established it came from a planet or a moon and not the asteroid belt , you examine other things .
The meterorite might have gas bubbles in it , so you compare the composition of the gas with your knowledge of the atmosphere of other planets .
In the case of ALH84001 , they may have seen that the rock had lots of Fe , like Mars , and that it had gas bubbles which matched what previous landers on the planet may have observed .
They then come to the conclusion that the meteorite in question is probably from Mars .
As for your other questions , the wikipedia article rightly points out that ALH84001 might have been contaminated .
That 's why you see articles like this peppered with maybe and probably every few words .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends on the meteorite being studied.
When a meteorite is discovered, scientists can study it and compare it to moon rocks.
They can compare the composition and makeup of the rock with the moon rocks and they'll find that the meteorites bear a strong resemblance, thus making it probable that it came from the moon.
For Martian meterorites, they can look at a few other things.
You can first check to see if it's igneous [wikipedia.org].
That indicates that it might have come from a place with molten rock and it solidified at some point.
That in turn indicates that this came from a planetary body.
Now that you've established it came from a planet or a moon and not the asteroid belt, you examine other things.
The meterorite might have gas bubbles in it, so you compare the composition of the gas with your knowledge of the atmosphere of other planets.
In the case of ALH84001, they may have seen that the rock had lots of Fe, like Mars, and that it had gas bubbles which matched what previous landers on the planet may have observed.
They then come to the conclusion that the meteorite in question is probably from Mars.
As for your other questions, the wikipedia article rightly points out that ALH84001 might have been contaminated.
That's why you see articles like this peppered with maybe and probably every few words.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30769220</id>
	<title>Re:My psychic prediction</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1263501180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I suppose, in consideration of theology, it depends on who you're asking. </i></p><p>This is true of everyone.  The OP who is all pumped up about "this changes everything" means "this changes everything for anyone who hasn't given the matter any thought in the past hundred years, since the time we realized that other stars were much like ours and therefore likely to harbour life."</p><p>So it'll change everything for the incurious bores who haven't been paying attention.  For thinking people it'll change nothing much, as the existence of extra-terrestrial life now seems so probable that its confirmation will be joyous but not surprising.</p><p>IDer's will have no problem with this.  They'll just say Martians were gay, and God hates gays (and, according to Pat Robertson, Haitians) so they were killed off.  Old Earth Creationists have the least tenable of any position, as they have to pretend to accept geology, including geo-chemistry, while denying the laws of probability.  Who knows what they'll say--the only thing we can be sure of is that it won't make any sense. Young Earth Creationists already believe that God is either not omnipotent, or is a liar, a charlatan and a cheat, so nothing much will change for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose , in consideration of theology , it depends on who you 're asking .
This is true of everyone .
The OP who is all pumped up about " this changes everything " means " this changes everything for anyone who has n't given the matter any thought in the past hundred years , since the time we realized that other stars were much like ours and therefore likely to harbour life .
" So it 'll change everything for the incurious bores who have n't been paying attention .
For thinking people it 'll change nothing much , as the existence of extra-terrestrial life now seems so probable that its confirmation will be joyous but not surprising.IDer 's will have no problem with this .
They 'll just say Martians were gay , and God hates gays ( and , according to Pat Robertson , Haitians ) so they were killed off .
Old Earth Creationists have the least tenable of any position , as they have to pretend to accept geology , including geo-chemistry , while denying the laws of probability .
Who knows what they 'll say--the only thing we can be sure of is that it wo n't make any sense .
Young Earth Creationists already believe that God is either not omnipotent , or is a liar , a charlatan and a cheat , so nothing much will change for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose, in consideration of theology, it depends on who you're asking.
This is true of everyone.
The OP who is all pumped up about "this changes everything" means "this changes everything for anyone who hasn't given the matter any thought in the past hundred years, since the time we realized that other stars were much like ours and therefore likely to harbour life.
"So it'll change everything for the incurious bores who haven't been paying attention.
For thinking people it'll change nothing much, as the existence of extra-terrestrial life now seems so probable that its confirmation will be joyous but not surprising.IDer's will have no problem with this.
They'll just say Martians were gay, and God hates gays (and, according to Pat Robertson, Haitians) so they were killed off.
Old Earth Creationists have the least tenable of any position, as they have to pretend to accept geology, including geo-chemistry, while denying the laws of probability.
Who knows what they'll say--the only thing we can be sure of is that it won't make any sense.
Young Earth Creationists already believe that God is either not omnipotent, or is a liar, a charlatan and a cheat, so nothing much will change for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768658</id>
	<title>Re:Life on Mars is impossible...</title>
	<author>arthurpaliden</author>
	<datestamp>1263499260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Only because we know that God would not make the same mistake twice.  She knows better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only because we know that God would not make the same mistake twice .
She knows better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only because we know that God would not make the same mistake twice.
She knows better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766012</id>
	<title>Very close to proving is not proving...</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1263490800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And "not so debunked" is still debunked. How come a martian asteroid on Earth can have life yet we didn't find any on the planet itself ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And " not so debunked " is still debunked .
How come a martian asteroid on Earth can have life yet we did n't find any on the planet itself ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And "not so debunked" is still debunked.
How come a martian asteroid on Earth can have life yet we didn't find any on the planet itself ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767038</id>
	<title>Re:That's right, bitches.</title>
	<author>Dragonslicer</author>
	<datestamp>1263494220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Damnit, Cartman, get off Slashdot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Damnit , Cartman , get off Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damnit, Cartman, get off Slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30775716</id>
	<title>Re:Obviously</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263495420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or we might just be realizing where we originally came from.  Think Doom 3 plot x100.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or we might just be realizing where we originally came from .
Think Doom 3 plot x100 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or we might just be realizing where we originally came from.
Think Doom 3 plot x100.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767028</id>
	<title>Re:Very close to proving is not proving...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263494160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Insightful? Really?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Insightful ?
Really ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Insightful?
Really?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30772100</id>
	<title>Re:I'd love to talk to someone knowledgeable about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263469260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"B) The scientific word "prove" is more about the lack of any valid competing hypotheses. If you can't come up with a reasonable alternative explanation for the data, you have to accept the presented explanation."</p><p>No you don't. If the remaining hypotheses is, for whatever reason, flawed, you can still say "I don't know."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" B ) The scientific word " prove " is more about the lack of any valid competing hypotheses .
If you ca n't come up with a reasonable alternative explanation for the data , you have to accept the presented explanation .
" No you do n't .
If the remaining hypotheses is , for whatever reason , flawed , you can still say " I do n't know .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"B) The scientific word "prove" is more about the lack of any valid competing hypotheses.
If you can't come up with a reasonable alternative explanation for the data, you have to accept the presented explanation.
"No you don't.
If the remaining hypotheses is, for whatever reason, flawed, you can still say "I don't know.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765836</id>
	<title>Re:My psychic prediction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263490260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I just had a psychic vision of the future. In my vision, this test ended up either producing negative or inconclusive results--once again disappointing the millions of believers who just cannot accept that, for all practical intents and purposes, we here on earth are all alone in the great big dark. I also see myself posting a link this this very post, a year or so from now, in yet another similar thread that has the believers once again futilely hoping that the discovery of life out there is "very, very close."</p></div><p>I think what you're witnessing isn't some X-Files Want to Believe style cult assembly or circle jerk but instead the simple fact that should this be confirmed, it changes <i>everything</i>.  From not only a scientific point of view with the near complete annihilation of Drake's equation but also from a philosophical and -- perhaps most importantly -- <a href="http://slashdot.org/journal/204755/Vatican-Prepares-for-Possibility-of-Extraterrestrial-Life?art\_pos=23" title="slashdot.org">theological</a> [slashdot.org] point of view.  Since the gravity of a decision in the positive direction is so great, the tiniest disturbances in the canon of thought surrounding extraterrestrial life gets close attention by the nerd world.  Even the minuscule announcement that in a certain amount of time we will know with 100\% certainty one way or the other on these fossils is actually newsworthy.  <br> <br>

Similar to the anti-global warming decision.  Huge consequences mean massive attention.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just had a psychic vision of the future .
In my vision , this test ended up either producing negative or inconclusive results--once again disappointing the millions of believers who just can not accept that , for all practical intents and purposes , we here on earth are all alone in the great big dark .
I also see myself posting a link this this very post , a year or so from now , in yet another similar thread that has the believers once again futilely hoping that the discovery of life out there is " very , very close .
" I think what you 're witnessing is n't some X-Files Want to Believe style cult assembly or circle jerk but instead the simple fact that should this be confirmed , it changes everything .
From not only a scientific point of view with the near complete annihilation of Drake 's equation but also from a philosophical and -- perhaps most importantly -- theological [ slashdot.org ] point of view .
Since the gravity of a decision in the positive direction is so great , the tiniest disturbances in the canon of thought surrounding extraterrestrial life gets close attention by the nerd world .
Even the minuscule announcement that in a certain amount of time we will know with 100 \ % certainty one way or the other on these fossils is actually newsworthy .
Similar to the anti-global warming decision .
Huge consequences mean massive attention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just had a psychic vision of the future.
In my vision, this test ended up either producing negative or inconclusive results--once again disappointing the millions of believers who just cannot accept that, for all practical intents and purposes, we here on earth are all alone in the great big dark.
I also see myself posting a link this this very post, a year or so from now, in yet another similar thread that has the believers once again futilely hoping that the discovery of life out there is "very, very close.
"I think what you're witnessing isn't some X-Files Want to Believe style cult assembly or circle jerk but instead the simple fact that should this be confirmed, it changes everything.
From not only a scientific point of view with the near complete annihilation of Drake's equation but also from a philosophical and -- perhaps most importantly -- theological [slashdot.org] point of view.
Since the gravity of a decision in the positive direction is so great, the tiniest disturbances in the canon of thought surrounding extraterrestrial life gets close attention by the nerd world.
Even the minuscule announcement that in a certain amount of time we will know with 100\% certainty one way or the other on these fossils is actually newsworthy.
Similar to the anti-global warming decision.
Huge consequences mean massive attention.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30769112</id>
	<title>Re:My psychic prediction</title>
	<author>idji</author>
	<datestamp>1263500760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, that empty space is protecting this tiny nest of life from the hostility of that dangerous universe. Where do you think all the Fe, Au, Cu, C, O, Ni, P, Mg etc came from that we rely on? Without all that empty space we would have been long fried/evaporated/fused/zapped/smashed/nova'ed/"singularized"/whatever. Your "waste" comment is like "junk" DNA. <br> <br>  We really are not that important on our <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale\_Blue\_Dot" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">pale blue dot</a> [wikipedia.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , that empty space is protecting this tiny nest of life from the hostility of that dangerous universe .
Where do you think all the Fe , Au , Cu , C , O , Ni , P , Mg etc came from that we rely on ?
Without all that empty space we would have been long fried/evaporated/fused/zapped/smashed/nova'ed/ " singularized " /whatever .
Your " waste " comment is like " junk " DNA .
We really are not that important on our pale blue dot [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, that empty space is protecting this tiny nest of life from the hostility of that dangerous universe.
Where do you think all the Fe, Au, Cu, C, O, Ni, P, Mg etc came from that we rely on?
Without all that empty space we would have been long fried/evaporated/fused/zapped/smashed/nova'ed/"singularized"/whatever.
Your "waste" comment is like "junk" DNA.
We really are not that important on our pale blue dot [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767304</id>
	<title>Re:Life on Mars is impossible...</title>
	<author>Dragonslicer</author>
	<datestamp>1263495180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We know that life arose from self-assembling molecules formed in a primitive thick atmosphere that rained into a primordial ocean where membranes wrapped around RNA packages to create unicellular life which eventually clustered and evolved into...us.  Mars has not had the atmosphere with methane and ammonia needed for amino acids to form and, if it did indeed have oceans, they were too small, too shallow, and far too short-lived to have allowed life to have evolved.  Ergo...life on Mars is...impossible.  Cleared that right up for ya.</p></div><p>Dude, can you share a) your time travel machine, or b) your method of achieving a lifespan of 3 billion years? I think the rest of the world would love to hear about it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We know that life arose from self-assembling molecules formed in a primitive thick atmosphere that rained into a primordial ocean where membranes wrapped around RNA packages to create unicellular life which eventually clustered and evolved into...us .
Mars has not had the atmosphere with methane and ammonia needed for amino acids to form and , if it did indeed have oceans , they were too small , too shallow , and far too short-lived to have allowed life to have evolved .
Ergo...life on Mars is...impossible .
Cleared that right up for ya.Dude , can you share a ) your time travel machine , or b ) your method of achieving a lifespan of 3 billion years ?
I think the rest of the world would love to hear about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We know that life arose from self-assembling molecules formed in a primitive thick atmosphere that rained into a primordial ocean where membranes wrapped around RNA packages to create unicellular life which eventually clustered and evolved into...us.
Mars has not had the atmosphere with methane and ammonia needed for amino acids to form and, if it did indeed have oceans, they were too small, too shallow, and far too short-lived to have allowed life to have evolved.
Ergo...life on Mars is...impossible.
Cleared that right up for ya.Dude, can you share a) your time travel machine, or b) your method of achieving a lifespan of 3 billion years?
I think the rest of the world would love to hear about it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766786</id>
	<title>Re:Very close to proving is not proving...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263493320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Martian asteroid? That doesn't even make sense. You're question isn't any smarter. It's like asking "how can we find dinosaur bones, but not any live dinosaurs?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Martian asteroid ?
That does n't even make sense .
You 're question is n't any smarter .
It 's like asking " how can we find dinosaur bones , but not any live dinosaurs ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Martian asteroid?
That doesn't even make sense.
You're question isn't any smarter.
It's like asking "how can we find dinosaur bones, but not any live dinosaurs?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766402</id>
	<title>Conclusive proof</title>
	<author>harris s newman</author>
	<datestamp>1263492060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Conclusive proof will be when we can grow the life in a lab repeatedly. All else is pure belief system driven.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Conclusive proof will be when we can grow the life in a lab repeatedly .
All else is pure belief system driven .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Conclusive proof will be when we can grow the life in a lab repeatedly.
All else is pure belief system driven.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30769452</id>
	<title>Re:I'd love to talk to someone knowledgeable about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263501960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No. One does not have to accept an extraordinary scientific claim just because one does not yet have another explanation. There is lots of data on UFOs. For some of this data, there is no reasonable alternative explanation. That doesn't mean that I have to start believing in UFOs. It just means that UFOlogy is a field where the data are all a big pile of doggy doo. Science has many subfields in which the state of the art is so terrible that reputable people don't want to get involved, and no progress is being made. Two good examples that spring to mind are nanobacteria and IQ testing.</p> </div><p>UFO's aren't a very good analogy because there usually is an alternate explanation (weather balloons, secret military experiments, gullible people), not to mention that "OMG ALIENS" isn't a scientific explanation. In the worst case, "unexplained phenomenon" is still a more accurate explanation than "aliens".</p><p>From the discussions, it sounds like these people actually do have some decent evidence for what they're claiming, and while they may never be able to prove 100\% that they're right, it's not like we can prove anything 100\%.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
One does not have to accept an extraordinary scientific claim just because one does not yet have another explanation .
There is lots of data on UFOs .
For some of this data , there is no reasonable alternative explanation .
That does n't mean that I have to start believing in UFOs .
It just means that UFOlogy is a field where the data are all a big pile of doggy doo .
Science has many subfields in which the state of the art is so terrible that reputable people do n't want to get involved , and no progress is being made .
Two good examples that spring to mind are nanobacteria and IQ testing .
UFO 's are n't a very good analogy because there usually is an alternate explanation ( weather balloons , secret military experiments , gullible people ) , not to mention that " OMG ALIENS " is n't a scientific explanation .
In the worst case , " unexplained phenomenon " is still a more accurate explanation than " aliens " .From the discussions , it sounds like these people actually do have some decent evidence for what they 're claiming , and while they may never be able to prove 100 \ % that they 're right , it 's not like we can prove anything 100 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
One does not have to accept an extraordinary scientific claim just because one does not yet have another explanation.
There is lots of data on UFOs.
For some of this data, there is no reasonable alternative explanation.
That doesn't mean that I have to start believing in UFOs.
It just means that UFOlogy is a field where the data are all a big pile of doggy doo.
Science has many subfields in which the state of the art is so terrible that reputable people don't want to get involved, and no progress is being made.
Two good examples that spring to mind are nanobacteria and IQ testing.
UFO's aren't a very good analogy because there usually is an alternate explanation (weather balloons, secret military experiments, gullible people), not to mention that "OMG ALIENS" isn't a scientific explanation.
In the worst case, "unexplained phenomenon" is still a more accurate explanation than "aliens".From the discussions, it sounds like these people actually do have some decent evidence for what they're claiming, and while they may never be able to prove 100\% that they're right, it's not like we can prove anything 100\%.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30769388</id>
	<title>Re:I'd love to talk to someone knowledgeable about</title>
	<author>katakomb</author>
	<datestamp>1263501660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If you can't come up with a reasonable alternative explanation for the data, you have to accept the presented explanation."</p><p>Actually, one is always free to reject all presented hypotheses, and await formulation of new ones to test.  Sometimes, it's best to say "I don't know".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If you ca n't come up with a reasonable alternative explanation for the data , you have to accept the presented explanation .
" Actually , one is always free to reject all presented hypotheses , and await formulation of new ones to test .
Sometimes , it 's best to say " I do n't know " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If you can't come up with a reasonable alternative explanation for the data, you have to accept the presented explanation.
"Actually, one is always free to reject all presented hypotheses, and await formulation of new ones to test.
Sometimes, it's best to say "I don't know".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766598</id>
	<title>Re:My psychic prediction</title>
	<author>MrFlibbs</author>
	<datestamp>1263492720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not so fast.  Even should life on Mars be proven, it does not "change everything".  It's entirely possible that life on Mars came from Earth, or even vice versa.  Meteoric impacts are quite capable of ejecting material at escape velocities.  Some microbes in the ejecta can survive this environment and, upon landing on the neighboring planet, reproduce.</p><p>Although any form of life on Mars would indeed be big news, it would not mean life originated independently.  Fascinating stuff, but not necessarily the big impact on the Drake equation that you surmise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not so fast .
Even should life on Mars be proven , it does not " change everything " .
It 's entirely possible that life on Mars came from Earth , or even vice versa .
Meteoric impacts are quite capable of ejecting material at escape velocities .
Some microbes in the ejecta can survive this environment and , upon landing on the neighboring planet , reproduce.Although any form of life on Mars would indeed be big news , it would not mean life originated independently .
Fascinating stuff , but not necessarily the big impact on the Drake equation that you surmise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not so fast.
Even should life on Mars be proven, it does not "change everything".
It's entirely possible that life on Mars came from Earth, or even vice versa.
Meteoric impacts are quite capable of ejecting material at escape velocities.
Some microbes in the ejecta can survive this environment and, upon landing on the neighboring planet, reproduce.Although any form of life on Mars would indeed be big news, it would not mean life originated independently.
Fascinating stuff, but not necessarily the big impact on the Drake equation that you surmise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30771798</id>
	<title>Re:My psychic prediction</title>
	<author>DM9290</author>
	<datestamp>1263467760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think what you're witnessing isn't some X-Files Want to Believe style cult assembly or circle jerk but instead the simple fact that should this be confirmed, it changes everything. From not only a scientific point of view with the near complete annihilation of Drake's equation but also from a philosophical and -- perhaps most importantly -- theological [slashdot.org] point of view. </p></div><p>God put microbes on mars in the last 6000 years to test our faith.</p><p>What was that you were saying about theological point of view?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think what you 're witnessing is n't some X-Files Want to Believe style cult assembly or circle jerk but instead the simple fact that should this be confirmed , it changes everything .
From not only a scientific point of view with the near complete annihilation of Drake 's equation but also from a philosophical and -- perhaps most importantly -- theological [ slashdot.org ] point of view .
God put microbes on mars in the last 6000 years to test our faith.What was that you were saying about theological point of view ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think what you're witnessing isn't some X-Files Want to Believe style cult assembly or circle jerk but instead the simple fact that should this be confirmed, it changes everything.
From not only a scientific point of view with the near complete annihilation of Drake's equation but also from a philosophical and -- perhaps most importantly -- theological [slashdot.org] point of view.
God put microbes on mars in the last 6000 years to test our faith.What was that you were saying about theological point of view?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767238</id>
	<title>Re:My psychic prediction</title>
	<author>Dynedain</author>
	<datestamp>1263494940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>They'll probably start by denying all of it, claiming it to be a hoax by evil evilushionists. Then they'll come around to the idea that God planted life there, but no later than 6000 years ago! The people who will change views are the fence sitters at any of these levels.</p></div></blockquote><p>Actually, their standard rhetoric on dinosaurs would still apply: Either the devil put it there to destroy mankinds belief in God, or else God placed it there as part of the creation process to test the faith of true believers.</p><p>So no major boat-rocking for that crowd either. Once someone chooses to believe something and stake their personal world view on it, it's pretty hard to dislodge that belief.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 'll probably start by denying all of it , claiming it to be a hoax by evil evilushionists .
Then they 'll come around to the idea that God planted life there , but no later than 6000 years ago !
The people who will change views are the fence sitters at any of these levels.Actually , their standard rhetoric on dinosaurs would still apply : Either the devil put it there to destroy mankinds belief in God , or else God placed it there as part of the creation process to test the faith of true believers.So no major boat-rocking for that crowd either .
Once someone chooses to believe something and stake their personal world view on it , it 's pretty hard to dislodge that belief .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They'll probably start by denying all of it, claiming it to be a hoax by evil evilushionists.
Then they'll come around to the idea that God planted life there, but no later than 6000 years ago!
The people who will change views are the fence sitters at any of these levels.Actually, their standard rhetoric on dinosaurs would still apply: Either the devil put it there to destroy mankinds belief in God, or else God placed it there as part of the creation process to test the faith of true believers.So no major boat-rocking for that crowd either.
Once someone chooses to believe something and stake their personal world view on it, it's pretty hard to dislodge that belief.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766564</id>
	<title>Re:Life on Mars is impossible...</title>
	<author>tclgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1263492660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We *think* we know that life arose....

There, I fixed that for you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We * think * we know that life arose... . There , I fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We *think* we know that life arose....

There, I fixed that for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30770410</id>
	<title>Re:Conclusive proof</title>
	<author>tpwch</author>
	<datestamp>1263462420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So just because we haven't been able to recreate Jurassic Park in reality it means we don't have proof that dinosaurs existed?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So just because we have n't been able to recreate Jurassic Park in reality it means we do n't have proof that dinosaurs existed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So just because we haven't been able to recreate Jurassic Park in reality it means we don't have proof that dinosaurs existed?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767452</id>
	<title>Re:My psychic prediction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263495660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This doesn't really affect Drake's equation at all. Drake's equation is already a ridiculous load of hooey. It's simply splitting a single unknowable question mark into a handful of smaller, unknowable question marks. Even assuming an estimated number could be plugged in to any of the terms, the unknowns render that estimate moot, and even if they didn't, the equation is sensitive enough to small variances that the margin of error in any estimate will <i>itself</i> render the calculation pointless.
<br> <br>
Drake's Equation is a thought experiment, not an actual useful mathematical calculation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This does n't really affect Drake 's equation at all .
Drake 's equation is already a ridiculous load of hooey .
It 's simply splitting a single unknowable question mark into a handful of smaller , unknowable question marks .
Even assuming an estimated number could be plugged in to any of the terms , the unknowns render that estimate moot , and even if they did n't , the equation is sensitive enough to small variances that the margin of error in any estimate will itself render the calculation pointless .
Drake 's Equation is a thought experiment , not an actual useful mathematical calculation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This doesn't really affect Drake's equation at all.
Drake's equation is already a ridiculous load of hooey.
It's simply splitting a single unknowable question mark into a handful of smaller, unknowable question marks.
Even assuming an estimated number could be plugged in to any of the terms, the unknowns render that estimate moot, and even if they didn't, the equation is sensitive enough to small variances that the margin of error in any estimate will itself render the calculation pointless.
Drake's Equation is a thought experiment, not an actual useful mathematical calculation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766910</id>
	<title>Re:Life on Mars is impossible...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263493800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's disappointing to see this kind of comment (which points to an obvious conflict between reality and theory) modded as "troll" by slashdotters, who are presumably more open-minded than the average bear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's disappointing to see this kind of comment ( which points to an obvious conflict between reality and theory ) modded as " troll " by slashdotters , who are presumably more open-minded than the average bear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's disappointing to see this kind of comment (which points to an obvious conflict between reality and theory) modded as "troll" by slashdotters, who are presumably more open-minded than the average bear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768092</id>
	<title>Re:I'd love to talk to someone knowledgeable about</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1263497520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
What makes me very dubious about these claims is that the structures are so small that they'd have to be nanobacteria, and yet the so-called "nanobacteria" on Earth <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2242841/?tool=pmcentrez" title="nih.gov">turn out to be non-living</a> [nih.gov].
</p><blockquote><div><p>B) The scientific word "prove" is more about the lack of any valid competing hypotheses. If you can't come up with a reasonable alternative explanation for the data, you have to accept the presented explanation.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
No. One does not have to accept an extraordinary scientific claim just because one does not yet have another explanation. There is lots of data on UFOs. For some of this data, there is no reasonable alternative explanation. That doesn't mean that I have to start believing in UFOs. It just means that UFOlogy is a field where the data are all a big pile of doggy doo. Science has many subfields in which the state of the art is so terrible that reputable people don't want to get involved, and no progress is being made. Two good examples that spring to mind are nanobacteria and IQ testing.
</p><p>
I am very skeptical about extraordinary scientific claims coming from NASA. NASA has not succeeded in instituting a culture of proper scientific peer review. For instance, the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project does crank stuff, and has ties to characters like Harold Puthoff, who specializes in things like telepathic visits to Jupiter. In a way it's not surprising that NASA has problems with proper peer review. They're the handmaiden of Congress. Congress wants the crewed space program to be run as a national prestige project, but they also want to be able to give justifications for the crewed space program that don't sound like pure nationalism. Therefore they coax NASA into coming up with bogus scientific justifications for programs like the shuttle and the ISS. In a culture that's all based on puffing up bad or nonexistent scientific achievements, it's not surprising that they're susceptible to kookiness.
</p><p>
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is not sufficient to say that there is no alternative explanation for these structures in the meteorites, and therefore they must have arisen from living organisms. No geologist has ever been to Mars. We know far less about Mars's geological history than we do about the earth's. It's not at all surprising that we find geological samples where we can't explain how they were formed. That doesn't mean that we immediately have to leap to the conclusion that they were made by nanobacteria.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What makes me very dubious about these claims is that the structures are so small that they 'd have to be nanobacteria , and yet the so-called " nanobacteria " on Earth turn out to be non-living [ nih.gov ] .
B ) The scientific word " prove " is more about the lack of any valid competing hypotheses .
If you ca n't come up with a reasonable alternative explanation for the data , you have to accept the presented explanation .
No. One does not have to accept an extraordinary scientific claim just because one does not yet have another explanation .
There is lots of data on UFOs .
For some of this data , there is no reasonable alternative explanation .
That does n't mean that I have to start believing in UFOs .
It just means that UFOlogy is a field where the data are all a big pile of doggy doo .
Science has many subfields in which the state of the art is so terrible that reputable people do n't want to get involved , and no progress is being made .
Two good examples that spring to mind are nanobacteria and IQ testing .
I am very skeptical about extraordinary scientific claims coming from NASA .
NASA has not succeeded in instituting a culture of proper scientific peer review .
For instance , the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project does crank stuff , and has ties to characters like Harold Puthoff , who specializes in things like telepathic visits to Jupiter .
In a way it 's not surprising that NASA has problems with proper peer review .
They 're the handmaiden of Congress .
Congress wants the crewed space program to be run as a national prestige project , but they also want to be able to give justifications for the crewed space program that do n't sound like pure nationalism .
Therefore they coax NASA into coming up with bogus scientific justifications for programs like the shuttle and the ISS .
In a culture that 's all based on puffing up bad or nonexistent scientific achievements , it 's not surprising that they 're susceptible to kookiness .
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence .
It is not sufficient to say that there is no alternative explanation for these structures in the meteorites , and therefore they must have arisen from living organisms .
No geologist has ever been to Mars .
We know far less about Mars 's geological history than we do about the earth 's .
It 's not at all surprising that we find geological samples where we ca n't explain how they were formed .
That does n't mean that we immediately have to leap to the conclusion that they were made by nanobacteria .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
What makes me very dubious about these claims is that the structures are so small that they'd have to be nanobacteria, and yet the so-called "nanobacteria" on Earth turn out to be non-living [nih.gov].
B) The scientific word "prove" is more about the lack of any valid competing hypotheses.
If you can't come up with a reasonable alternative explanation for the data, you have to accept the presented explanation.
No. One does not have to accept an extraordinary scientific claim just because one does not yet have another explanation.
There is lots of data on UFOs.
For some of this data, there is no reasonable alternative explanation.
That doesn't mean that I have to start believing in UFOs.
It just means that UFOlogy is a field where the data are all a big pile of doggy doo.
Science has many subfields in which the state of the art is so terrible that reputable people don't want to get involved, and no progress is being made.
Two good examples that spring to mind are nanobacteria and IQ testing.
I am very skeptical about extraordinary scientific claims coming from NASA.
NASA has not succeeded in instituting a culture of proper scientific peer review.
For instance, the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project does crank stuff, and has ties to characters like Harold Puthoff, who specializes in things like telepathic visits to Jupiter.
In a way it's not surprising that NASA has problems with proper peer review.
They're the handmaiden of Congress.
Congress wants the crewed space program to be run as a national prestige project, but they also want to be able to give justifications for the crewed space program that don't sound like pure nationalism.
Therefore they coax NASA into coming up with bogus scientific justifications for programs like the shuttle and the ISS.
In a culture that's all based on puffing up bad or nonexistent scientific achievements, it's not surprising that they're susceptible to kookiness.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
It is not sufficient to say that there is no alternative explanation for these structures in the meteorites, and therefore they must have arisen from living organisms.
No geologist has ever been to Mars.
We know far less about Mars's geological history than we do about the earth's.
It's not at all surprising that we find geological samples where we can't explain how they were formed.
That doesn't mean that we immediately have to leap to the conclusion that they were made by nanobacteria.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767316</id>
	<title>Re:Obviously</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263495240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and yet our discovery of them, tests god.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and yet our discovery of them , tests god .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and yet our discovery of them, tests god.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30774030</id>
	<title>Re:I'd love to talk to someone knowledgeable about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263479640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>No. One does not have to accept an extraordinary scientific claim just because one does not yet have another explanation. There is lots of data on UFOs. For some of this data, there is no reasonable alternative explanation.</p></div></blockquote><p>Nonsense. There are loads of reasonable alternative explations. Almost all UFO sightings can be explained as weather phenomena or human aircraft. In the remaining cases, weather phenomena or human aircraft remain <i>at least</i> as reasonable explanations as ET.</p><p>(Also: UFO means Unidentified Flying Object, and they do factually exist, since anything flying is an uidentified flying object until you know what it is. Trite but true.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
One does not have to accept an extraordinary scientific claim just because one does not yet have another explanation .
There is lots of data on UFOs .
For some of this data , there is no reasonable alternative explanation.Nonsense .
There are loads of reasonable alternative explations .
Almost all UFO sightings can be explained as weather phenomena or human aircraft .
In the remaining cases , weather phenomena or human aircraft remain at least as reasonable explanations as ET .
( Also : UFO means Unidentified Flying Object , and they do factually exist , since anything flying is an uidentified flying object until you know what it is .
Trite but true .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
One does not have to accept an extraordinary scientific claim just because one does not yet have another explanation.
There is lots of data on UFOs.
For some of this data, there is no reasonable alternative explanation.Nonsense.
There are loads of reasonable alternative explations.
Almost all UFO sightings can be explained as weather phenomena or human aircraft.
In the remaining cases, weather phenomena or human aircraft remain at least as reasonable explanations as ET.
(Also: UFO means Unidentified Flying Object, and they do factually exist, since anything flying is an uidentified flying object until you know what it is.
Trite but true.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30778320</id>
	<title>Re:My psychic prediction</title>
	<author>Fred\_A</author>
	<datestamp>1263567780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>From not only a scientific point of view with the near complete annihilation of Drake's equation but also from a philosophical and -- perhaps most importantly -- <a href="http://slashdot.org/journal/204755/Vatican-Prepares-for-Possibility-of-Extraterrestrial-Life?art\_pos=23" title="slashdot.org">theological</a> [slashdot.org] point of view.</p></div><p>A lot of people may consider it rather strange that you find mind constructs more important than the real world (whether or not they add value to one's daily life).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From not only a scientific point of view with the near complete annihilation of Drake 's equation but also from a philosophical and -- perhaps most importantly -- theological [ slashdot.org ] point of view.A lot of people may consider it rather strange that you find mind constructs more important than the real world ( whether or not they add value to one 's daily life ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From not only a scientific point of view with the near complete annihilation of Drake's equation but also from a philosophical and -- perhaps most importantly -- theological [slashdot.org] point of view.A lot of people may consider it rather strange that you find mind constructs more important than the real world (whether or not they add value to one's daily life).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766888</id>
	<title>Bothered</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1263493740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But some scientists are still bothered by the "Made in China" imprint on the bottom of the rocks.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But some scientists are still bothered by the " Made in China " imprint on the bottom of the rocks .
     </tokentext>
<sentencetext>But some scientists are still bothered by the "Made in China" imprint on the bottom of the rocks.
     </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30774522</id>
	<title>Re:My psychic prediction</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1263483360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love those arguments.  Both god and the devil are trying to screw with you, and it's equally plausible that they're doing so in the same way.</p><p>Do you think they go out for a beer afterward and congratulate each other?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love those arguments .
Both god and the devil are trying to screw with you , and it 's equally plausible that they 're doing so in the same way.Do you think they go out for a beer afterward and congratulate each other ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love those arguments.
Both god and the devil are trying to screw with you, and it's equally plausible that they're doing so in the same way.Do you think they go out for a beer afterward and congratulate each other?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768688</id>
	<title>Re:My psychic prediction</title>
	<author>krou</author>
	<datestamp>1263499320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In all seriousness, it's the theological implication I find interesting. Your journal entry link is interesting, thanks for the link; the idea they've put forward that aliens have their own Christ is quite fascinating. But what if the alien life we discover has no sentient intelligence? How would this evidence of life existing on another planet affect religion? Oh no, we were all wrong? Something God forgot to tell us about in religious texts? An early experiment that didn't work out?</htmltext>
<tokenext>In all seriousness , it 's the theological implication I find interesting .
Your journal entry link is interesting , thanks for the link ; the idea they 've put forward that aliens have their own Christ is quite fascinating .
But what if the alien life we discover has no sentient intelligence ?
How would this evidence of life existing on another planet affect religion ?
Oh no , we were all wrong ?
Something God forgot to tell us about in religious texts ?
An early experiment that did n't work out ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In all seriousness, it's the theological implication I find interesting.
Your journal entry link is interesting, thanks for the link; the idea they've put forward that aliens have their own Christ is quite fascinating.
But what if the alien life we discover has no sentient intelligence?
How would this evidence of life existing on another planet affect religion?
Oh no, we were all wrong?
Something God forgot to tell us about in religious texts?
An early experiment that didn't work out?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30771908</id>
	<title>The Great Filter</title>
	<author>fritsd</author>
	<datestamp>1263468360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My rambling point is this: Finding life on Mars doesn't mean that ET is out there, it means that there must be another reason that we haven't found ET yet. It means that the origin of life isn't the hurdle, but the hurdle must still exist, otherwise we'd be seeing or hearing our neighbors by now.</p></div><p>
That (quite depressing) theory has been dubbed <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Great\_Filter" title="wikipedia.org">"The Great Filter"</a> [wikipedia.org] by <a href="http://hanson.gmu.edu/greatfilter.html" title="gmu.edu">Robin Hanson</a> [gmu.edu].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My rambling point is this : Finding life on Mars does n't mean that ET is out there , it means that there must be another reason that we have n't found ET yet .
It means that the origin of life is n't the hurdle , but the hurdle must still exist , otherwise we 'd be seeing or hearing our neighbors by now .
That ( quite depressing ) theory has been dubbed " The Great Filter " [ wikipedia.org ] by Robin Hanson [ gmu.edu ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My rambling point is this: Finding life on Mars doesn't mean that ET is out there, it means that there must be another reason that we haven't found ET yet.
It means that the origin of life isn't the hurdle, but the hurdle must still exist, otherwise we'd be seeing or hearing our neighbors by now.
That (quite depressing) theory has been dubbed "The Great Filter" [wikipedia.org] by Robin Hanson [gmu.edu].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766990</id>
	<title>Re:Life on Mars is impossible...</title>
	<author>ArcherB</author>
	<datestamp>1263494100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We know that life arose from self-assembling molecules formed in a primitive thick atmosphere that rained into a primordial ocean where membranes wrapped around RNA packages to create unicellular life which eventually clustered and evolved into...us.  Mars has not had the atmosphere with methane and ammonia needed for amino acids to form and, if it did indeed have oceans, they were too small, too shallow, and far too short-lived to have allowed life to have evolved.  Ergo...life on Mars is...impossible.  Cleared that right up for ya.</p></div><p>Assuming, of course that all life requires RNA, methane, ammonia, amino acids and oceans of water to form and that any life in the universe will have to organic in nature.  (Organic as in being carbon based, not made naturally).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We know that life arose from self-assembling molecules formed in a primitive thick atmosphere that rained into a primordial ocean where membranes wrapped around RNA packages to create unicellular life which eventually clustered and evolved into...us .
Mars has not had the atmosphere with methane and ammonia needed for amino acids to form and , if it did indeed have oceans , they were too small , too shallow , and far too short-lived to have allowed life to have evolved .
Ergo...life on Mars is...impossible .
Cleared that right up for ya.Assuming , of course that all life requires RNA , methane , ammonia , amino acids and oceans of water to form and that any life in the universe will have to organic in nature .
( Organic as in being carbon based , not made naturally ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We know that life arose from self-assembling molecules formed in a primitive thick atmosphere that rained into a primordial ocean where membranes wrapped around RNA packages to create unicellular life which eventually clustered and evolved into...us.
Mars has not had the atmosphere with methane and ammonia needed for amino acids to form and, if it did indeed have oceans, they were too small, too shallow, and far too short-lived to have allowed life to have evolved.
Ergo...life on Mars is...impossible.
Cleared that right up for ya.Assuming, of course that all life requires RNA, methane, ammonia, amino acids and oceans of water to form and that any life in the universe will have to organic in nature.
(Organic as in being carbon based, not made naturally).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767456</id>
	<title>Re:I'd love to talk to someone knowledgeable about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263495660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd love to see more Slashdot posters stop using the Subject field to start the main body of their comment. First type the body, then summarize it in the subject.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd love to see more Slashdot posters stop using the Subject field to start the main body of their comment .
First type the body , then summarize it in the subject .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd love to see more Slashdot posters stop using the Subject field to start the main body of their comment.
First type the body, then summarize it in the subject.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766218</id>
	<title>Obviously</title>
	<author>azav</author>
	<datestamp>1263491520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>God put them there to test us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>God put them there to test us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God put them there to test us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767246</id>
	<title>Realistically, though...</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1263495000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... any speculation about life in other galaxies is just that - speculation. There's no realistic hope of ever knowing whether there is or isn't any form of life in a body that's, say, 2.5 million light-years away (the distance to Andromeda). The only thing it really makes sense to even talk about is whether there's life elsewhere in THIS galaxy, and even that would be quite a trick to detect without some pretty substantial advances in technology. Mars is right next door, and we've been trying to answer this question for how many years? And we still don't really know.</p><p>I'll grant that the universe is a really huge place, and it seems likely that if life happened here, it probably happened SOMEWHERE else. But life outside the Milky Way might as well not exist, as far as we're concerned. We'll never be able to interact with it in any way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... any speculation about life in other galaxies is just that - speculation .
There 's no realistic hope of ever knowing whether there is or is n't any form of life in a body that 's , say , 2.5 million light-years away ( the distance to Andromeda ) .
The only thing it really makes sense to even talk about is whether there 's life elsewhere in THIS galaxy , and even that would be quite a trick to detect without some pretty substantial advances in technology .
Mars is right next door , and we 've been trying to answer this question for how many years ?
And we still do n't really know.I 'll grant that the universe is a really huge place , and it seems likely that if life happened here , it probably happened SOMEWHERE else .
But life outside the Milky Way might as well not exist , as far as we 're concerned .
We 'll never be able to interact with it in any way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... any speculation about life in other galaxies is just that - speculation.
There's no realistic hope of ever knowing whether there is or isn't any form of life in a body that's, say, 2.5 million light-years away (the distance to Andromeda).
The only thing it really makes sense to even talk about is whether there's life elsewhere in THIS galaxy, and even that would be quite a trick to detect without some pretty substantial advances in technology.
Mars is right next door, and we've been trying to answer this question for how many years?
And we still don't really know.I'll grant that the universe is a really huge place, and it seems likely that if life happened here, it probably happened SOMEWHERE else.
But life outside the Milky Way might as well not exist, as far as we're concerned.
We'll never be able to interact with it in any way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30771422</id>
	<title>Re:My psychic prediction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263466020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...should this be confirmed, it changes everything. From not only a scientific point of view...but also from a philosophical and -- perhaps most importantly -- theological [slashdot.org] point of view.</p></div><p>Important to you, perhaps. Not to me. Theology and associated cultism if of no interest or value to me and many others, therefore any changes theology and cultism experience as a result of the testing of Martian meteorites are utterly meaningless.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...should this be confirmed , it changes everything .
From not only a scientific point of view...but also from a philosophical and -- perhaps most importantly -- theological [ slashdot.org ] point of view.Important to you , perhaps .
Not to me .
Theology and associated cultism if of no interest or value to me and many others , therefore any changes theology and cultism experience as a result of the testing of Martian meteorites are utterly meaningless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...should this be confirmed, it changes everything.
From not only a scientific point of view...but also from a philosophical and -- perhaps most importantly -- theological [slashdot.org] point of view.Important to you, perhaps.
Not to me.
Theology and associated cultism if of no interest or value to me and many others, therefore any changes theology and cultism experience as a result of the testing of Martian meteorites are utterly meaningless.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765808</id>
	<title>Re:My psychic prediction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263490200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>we here on earth are all alone in the great big dark.</p></div><p>If that's true, it's an awful waste of space.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>we here on earth are all alone in the great big dark.If that 's true , it 's an awful waste of space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we here on earth are all alone in the great big dark.If that's true, it's an awful waste of space.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30773532</id>
	<title>Re:Wait, huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263476400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a lot more than 3. I have one. It weighs a little over one gram. It's not a piece or a slice, but a tiny meteor that entered the atmosphere separately. Don't ask what it cost me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a lot more than 3 .
I have one .
It weighs a little over one gram .
It 's not a piece or a slice , but a tiny meteor that entered the atmosphere separately .
Do n't ask what it cost me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a lot more than 3.
I have one.
It weighs a little over one gram.
It's not a piece or a slice, but a tiny meteor that entered the atmosphere separately.
Don't ask what it cost me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767010</id>
	<title>Re:Wait, huh?</title>
	<author>Yamata no Orochi</author>
	<datestamp>1263494100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe you should read the Bible less, and some science books more.</p></div><p>Wow.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe you should read the Bible less , and some science books more.Wow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe you should read the Bible less, and some science books more.Wow.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766498</id>
	<title>Re:That's right, bitches.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263492420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Life on fucking mars.</p><p>I'll bet you nerdy cunts never thought you'd see the day.</p><p>well, bend over and lick my balls, Jew.</p></div><p>Hey, Alex, I recognize your style, what in Burty's name are you doing on Slashdot?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Life on fucking mars.I 'll bet you nerdy cunts never thought you 'd see the day.well , bend over and lick my balls , Jew.Hey , Alex , I recognize your style , what in Burty 's name are you doing on Slashdot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Life on fucking mars.I'll bet you nerdy cunts never thought you'd see the day.well, bend over and lick my balls, Jew.Hey, Alex, I recognize your style, what in Burty's name are you doing on Slashdot?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767280</id>
	<title>Conclusions first, Studies second</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263495120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The scientific teams are "very, very close to proving there is or has been life [on Mars]," said David McKay, chief of astrobiology at the NASA Johnson Space Center in Houston, in a Spaceflight Now interview."
<br> <br>
Shouldn't the conclusion follow from the experiment or data?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The scientific teams are " very , very close to proving there is or has been life [ on Mars ] , " said David McKay , chief of astrobiology at the NASA Johnson Space Center in Houston , in a Spaceflight Now interview .
" Should n't the conclusion follow from the experiment or data ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The scientific teams are "very, very close to proving there is or has been life [on Mars]," said David McKay, chief of astrobiology at the NASA Johnson Space Center in Houston, in a Spaceflight Now interview.
"
 
Shouldn't the conclusion follow from the experiment or data?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30778900</id>
	<title>Re:That's right, bitches.</title>
	<author>NSN A392-99-964-5927</author>
	<datestamp>1263570840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No need to be that furious about the matter. We know there was life on Mars and an EPIC battle in the past. Just look at the craters on the Moon. Sadly some scientists will not admit the truth that we are the only living species in the Universe. Not so!

To help you out, I am reading the "Ancient Egyption Book of the Dead", buy Budge all 3 volumes first editions which are extremely rare including illustrations of hieroglyphics that are not included in other books. They define a UFO's and martians and technology. Furthermore, I have read the bible and q'ran and but the book of the dead explained the Lords Prayer Christian and Catholic religions and prayers to say the least.

Now I wanted to finish this post, but I am getting money together for the people of Haiti. I only have one pair of hands and am taking a massive amount of calls.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No need to be that furious about the matter .
We know there was life on Mars and an EPIC battle in the past .
Just look at the craters on the Moon .
Sadly some scientists will not admit the truth that we are the only living species in the Universe .
Not so !
To help you out , I am reading the " Ancient Egyption Book of the Dead " , buy Budge all 3 volumes first editions which are extremely rare including illustrations of hieroglyphics that are not included in other books .
They define a UFO 's and martians and technology .
Furthermore , I have read the bible and q'ran and but the book of the dead explained the Lords Prayer Christian and Catholic religions and prayers to say the least .
Now I wanted to finish this post , but I am getting money together for the people of Haiti .
I only have one pair of hands and am taking a massive amount of calls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No need to be that furious about the matter.
We know there was life on Mars and an EPIC battle in the past.
Just look at the craters on the Moon.
Sadly some scientists will not admit the truth that we are the only living species in the Universe.
Not so!
To help you out, I am reading the "Ancient Egyption Book of the Dead", buy Budge all 3 volumes first editions which are extremely rare including illustrations of hieroglyphics that are not included in other books.
They define a UFO's and martians and technology.
Furthermore, I have read the bible and q'ran and but the book of the dead explained the Lords Prayer Christian and Catholic religions and prayers to say the least.
Now I wanted to finish this post, but I am getting money together for the people of Haiti.
I only have one pair of hands and am taking a massive amount of calls.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768390</id>
	<title>Re:Very close to proving is not proving...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263498360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We will make it to {Mars} not because it is easy, but because it is hard."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We will make it to { Mars } not because it is easy , but because it is hard .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We will make it to {Mars} not because it is easy, but because it is hard.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30773758</id>
	<title>Re:My psychic prediction</title>
	<author>TheRon6</author>
	<datestamp>1263477780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>we here on earth are all alone in the great big dark.</p></div><p>If that's true, it's an awful waste of space.</p></div><p>
Not to be disagreeable but saying that it's a "waste of space" implies that space is specifically supposed to be used for something.  (Your statement implies that its purpose is to contain life but that's not entirely relevant here.)  What you're essentially doing is assigning a meaning to space itself, but "meaning" (not to be confused with cause-and-effect as it so frequently is in philosophical arguments) is a totally human created concept so the "waste of space" argument is unfortunately invalid.<br>
<br>
That said, I really, REALLY hope that life is abundant in the universe.  I just don't think that much can be said to predict whether or not it is until we get out there and look for it which is exactly what they're doing here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>we here on earth are all alone in the great big dark.If that 's true , it 's an awful waste of space .
Not to be disagreeable but saying that it 's a " waste of space " implies that space is specifically supposed to be used for something .
( Your statement implies that its purpose is to contain life but that 's not entirely relevant here .
) What you 're essentially doing is assigning a meaning to space itself , but " meaning " ( not to be confused with cause-and-effect as it so frequently is in philosophical arguments ) is a totally human created concept so the " waste of space " argument is unfortunately invalid .
That said , I really , REALLY hope that life is abundant in the universe .
I just do n't think that much can be said to predict whether or not it is until we get out there and look for it which is exactly what they 're doing here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we here on earth are all alone in the great big dark.If that's true, it's an awful waste of space.
Not to be disagreeable but saying that it's a "waste of space" implies that space is specifically supposed to be used for something.
(Your statement implies that its purpose is to contain life but that's not entirely relevant here.
)  What you're essentially doing is assigning a meaning to space itself, but "meaning" (not to be confused with cause-and-effect as it so frequently is in philosophical arguments) is a totally human created concept so the "waste of space" argument is unfortunately invalid.
That said, I really, REALLY hope that life is abundant in the universe.
I just don't think that much can be said to predict whether or not it is until we get out there and look for it which is exactly what they're doing here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766250</id>
	<title>Re:My psychic prediction</title>
	<author>nyctopterus</author>
	<datestamp>1263491580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>.  From not only a scientific point of view with the near complete annihilation of Drake's equation<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>Err, this would help us pin down one of the variables in the drake equation, not <i>destroy</i> it!</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake\_equation#The\_equation" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake\_equation#The\_equation</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Specifically these variables:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; fe = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.
From not only a scientific point of view with the near complete annihilation of Drake 's equation ...Err , this would help us pin down one of the variables in the drake equation , not destroy it ! http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake \ _equation # The \ _equation [ wikipedia.org ] Specifically these variables :       ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets         fe = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
From not only a scientific point of view with the near complete annihilation of Drake's equation ...Err, this would help us pin down one of the variables in the drake equation, not destroy it!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake\_equation#The\_equation [wikipedia.org]Specifically these variables:
      ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
        fe = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766610</id>
	<title>A "nearby solar system"? What are you smokin?</title>
	<author>crovira</author>
	<datestamp>1263492780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nearby is still light years away.</p><p>An unguided rock fragment expelled from several light years away?</p><p>Odds are that we'd get missed since the diameter of the earth's gravity well is a vanishingly small arc within the solar system, never mind to a nearby system.</p><p>Nah...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nearby is still light years away.An unguided rock fragment expelled from several light years away ? Odds are that we 'd get missed since the diameter of the earth 's gravity well is a vanishingly small arc within the solar system , never mind to a nearby system.Nah.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nearby is still light years away.An unguided rock fragment expelled from several light years away?Odds are that we'd get missed since the diameter of the earth's gravity well is a vanishingly small arc within the solar system, never mind to a nearby system.Nah...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30770636</id>
	<title>It aint gonna play out like you think.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263463260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The assumption seems to be that if these things are shown be the remnants of microorganisms or we get a signal form SETI then we can finally put this God thing to rest.</p><p>I've searched the bible and did not find any references to North America- therefore, since God forgot to mention it in his book, its confirmed existence should suffice in proving the non-existence of God and we will not be needing these Martial Fossils.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The assumption seems to be that if these things are shown be the remnants of microorganisms or we get a signal form SETI then we can finally put this God thing to rest.I 've searched the bible and did not find any references to North America- therefore , since God forgot to mention it in his book , its confirmed existence should suffice in proving the non-existence of God and we will not be needing these Martial Fossils .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The assumption seems to be that if these things are shown be the remnants of microorganisms or we get a signal form SETI then we can finally put this God thing to rest.I've searched the bible and did not find any references to North America- therefore, since God forgot to mention it in his book, its confirmed existence should suffice in proving the non-existence of God and we will not be needing these Martial Fossils.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766436</id>
	<title>Re:Very close to proving is not proving...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263492180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because we barely have the technology to detect this on earth - it's been years since we started examining the rock, and they still haven't drawn a definite conclusion. The tools on the rovers just aren't sufficient to do this kind of work. Nothing that could *fit* on a rover is. (Now if there were *still* life on mars, the rover might be able to detect it. But not on the kind of scales in time and space that we're talking about with this rock.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because we barely have the technology to detect this on earth - it 's been years since we started examining the rock , and they still have n't drawn a definite conclusion .
The tools on the rovers just are n't sufficient to do this kind of work .
Nothing that could * fit * on a rover is .
( Now if there were * still * life on mars , the rover might be able to detect it .
But not on the kind of scales in time and space that we 're talking about with this rock .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because we barely have the technology to detect this on earth - it's been years since we started examining the rock, and they still haven't drawn a definite conclusion.
The tools on the rovers just aren't sufficient to do this kind of work.
Nothing that could *fit* on a rover is.
(Now if there were *still* life on mars, the rover might be able to detect it.
But not on the kind of scales in time and space that we're talking about with this rock.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767478</id>
	<title>Re:Very close to proving is not proving...</title>
	<author>edittard</author>
	<datestamp>1263495720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe there are different levels of debunkedness?</p><p>If you can have "most unique" I'd say anything's possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe there are different levels of debunkedness ? If you can have " most unique " I 'd say anything 's possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe there are different levels of debunkedness?If you can have "most unique" I'd say anything's possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766886</id>
	<title>I thought that name sounded familiar...</title>
	<author>Anubis IV</author>
	<datestamp>1263493740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>David McKay is the scientist whose own brother doesn't even believe him. See <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/06/137257" title="slashdot.org">this article</a> [slashdot.org] from back at the 10-year anniversary of the "found life" announcement. It sounds like this thing has become his own little personal crusade.</htmltext>
<tokenext>David McKay is the scientist whose own brother does n't even believe him .
See this article [ slashdot.org ] from back at the 10-year anniversary of the " found life " announcement .
It sounds like this thing has become his own little personal crusade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>David McKay is the scientist whose own brother doesn't even believe him.
See this article [slashdot.org] from back at the 10-year anniversary of the "found life" announcement.
It sounds like this thing has become his own little personal crusade.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30769642</id>
	<title>Re:My psychic prediction</title>
	<author>pnewhook</author>
	<datestamp>1263502560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but also from a philosophical and -- perhaps most importantly -- theological point of view.</p></div><p>Why would the discovery of life, even intelligent life in the universe have any impact on theology?  Where does it say in the bible, or any other religious text for that matter, that we are alone in the universe?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but also from a philosophical and -- perhaps most importantly -- theological point of view.Why would the discovery of life , even intelligent life in the universe have any impact on theology ?
Where does it say in the bible , or any other religious text for that matter , that we are alone in the universe ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but also from a philosophical and -- perhaps most importantly -- theological point of view.Why would the discovery of life, even intelligent life in the universe have any impact on theology?
Where does it say in the bible, or any other religious text for that matter, that we are alone in the universe?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30774300</id>
	<title>Re:I'd love to talk to someone knowledgeable about</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1263481680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No. One does not have to accept an extraordinary scientific claim just because one does not yet have another explanation. There is lots of data on UFOs. For some of this data, there is no reasonable alternative explanation. That doesn't mean that I have to start believing in UFOs. It just means that UFOlogy is a field where the data are all a big pile of doggy doo.</p></div><p>You are attacking a straw man here because obviously if you can't trust the observations you can't trust the evidence. But we're talking about meteorites in a lab and test samples by scientific probes here, not somebody who saw weird lights in the sky. If any scientist can pull up a microscope and confirm the patterns are there, then that is pretty much an established fact that the patterns exist, the only question is how. The same can not at all be said about UFOs, least not the alien craft variety.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
One does not have to accept an extraordinary scientific claim just because one does not yet have another explanation .
There is lots of data on UFOs .
For some of this data , there is no reasonable alternative explanation .
That does n't mean that I have to start believing in UFOs .
It just means that UFOlogy is a field where the data are all a big pile of doggy doo.You are attacking a straw man here because obviously if you ca n't trust the observations you ca n't trust the evidence .
But we 're talking about meteorites in a lab and test samples by scientific probes here , not somebody who saw weird lights in the sky .
If any scientist can pull up a microscope and confirm the patterns are there , then that is pretty much an established fact that the patterns exist , the only question is how .
The same can not at all be said about UFOs , least not the alien craft variety .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
One does not have to accept an extraordinary scientific claim just because one does not yet have another explanation.
There is lots of data on UFOs.
For some of this data, there is no reasonable alternative explanation.
That doesn't mean that I have to start believing in UFOs.
It just means that UFOlogy is a field where the data are all a big pile of doggy doo.You are attacking a straw man here because obviously if you can't trust the observations you can't trust the evidence.
But we're talking about meteorites in a lab and test samples by scientific probes here, not somebody who saw weird lights in the sky.
If any scientist can pull up a microscope and confirm the patterns are there, then that is pretty much an established fact that the patterns exist, the only question is how.
The same can not at all be said about UFOs, least not the alien craft variety.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766366</id>
	<title>Re:My psychic prediction</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1263491940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>From not only a scientific point of view with the near complete annihilation of Drake's equation but also from a philosophical and -- perhaps most importantly -- <a href="http://slashdot.org/journal/204755/Vatican-Prepares-for-Possibility-of-Extraterrestrial-Life?art\_pos=23" title="slashdot.org">theological</a> [slashdot.org] point of view.</p>  </div><p>For example, creation becomes a lot more plausible, within a flexible version of the concept that puts life here through magical forces, only on board a rock.  And if you can keep an open enough mind to consider such a possibility, you may find that nothing is changed at all.  Facts, faith, and belief will all still exist despite any findings from efforts such as these.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From not only a scientific point of view with the near complete annihilation of Drake 's equation but also from a philosophical and -- perhaps most importantly -- theological [ slashdot.org ] point of view .
For example , creation becomes a lot more plausible , within a flexible version of the concept that puts life here through magical forces , only on board a rock .
And if you can keep an open enough mind to consider such a possibility , you may find that nothing is changed at all .
Facts , faith , and belief will all still exist despite any findings from efforts such as these .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From not only a scientific point of view with the near complete annihilation of Drake's equation but also from a philosophical and -- perhaps most importantly -- theological [slashdot.org] point of view.
For example, creation becomes a lot more plausible, within a flexible version of the concept that puts life here through magical forces, only on board a rock.
And if you can keep an open enough mind to consider such a possibility, you may find that nothing is changed at all.
Facts, faith, and belief will all still exist despite any findings from efforts such as these.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765970</id>
	<title>Bad Reporting and Quote Mining</title>
	<author>CheshireCatCO</author>
	<datestamp>1263490620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all, why bother linking to PopSci when the original story, even as quoted by PopSci, is at <a href="http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1001/09marslife/" title="spaceflightnow.com">Spaceflight Now</a> [spaceflightnow.com]?</p><p>(Of course, the title of the Slashdot piece is pretty bad as well, so I be too surprised.)</p><p>Second, the quote in both the blurb and the PopSci article is taken out of context.  The original, from Spaceflight Now:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"But we do believe that we are very, very close to proving there is or has been life there," McKay tells Spaceflight Now.</p> </div><p>The words at the beginning make a world of difference in terms of McKay's attitude.  He's not asserting something he can't know, he's stating he, personally, feels confident.  (But it <em>is</em> stated as an opinion.)  That's just crappy reporting.  (Or, in this case, not even reporting: copying and pasting.)</p><p>All that said, it'll be exciting if it turns up anything, but don't hold your breath.  There are just so many ways to contaminate the samples or to produce a lot of the effects that they've seen abiotically that I don't think we'll answer this question from Earth.  I suspect to get most scientists to agree that there's life, we'll have to find it <i>in situ</i>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , why bother linking to PopSci when the original story , even as quoted by PopSci , is at Spaceflight Now [ spaceflightnow.com ] ?
( Of course , the title of the Slashdot piece is pretty bad as well , so I be too surprised .
) Second , the quote in both the blurb and the PopSci article is taken out of context .
The original , from Spaceflight Now : " But we do believe that we are very , very close to proving there is or has been life there , " McKay tells Spaceflight Now .
The words at the beginning make a world of difference in terms of McKay 's attitude .
He 's not asserting something he ca n't know , he 's stating he , personally , feels confident .
( But it is stated as an opinion .
) That 's just crappy reporting .
( Or , in this case , not even reporting : copying and pasting .
) All that said , it 'll be exciting if it turns up anything , but do n't hold your breath .
There are just so many ways to contaminate the samples or to produce a lot of the effects that they 've seen abiotically that I do n't think we 'll answer this question from Earth .
I suspect to get most scientists to agree that there 's life , we 'll have to find it in situ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, why bother linking to PopSci when the original story, even as quoted by PopSci, is at Spaceflight Now [spaceflightnow.com]?
(Of course, the title of the Slashdot piece is pretty bad as well, so I be too surprised.
)Second, the quote in both the blurb and the PopSci article is taken out of context.
The original, from Spaceflight Now:"But we do believe that we are very, very close to proving there is or has been life there," McKay tells Spaceflight Now.
The words at the beginning make a world of difference in terms of McKay's attitude.
He's not asserting something he can't know, he's stating he, personally, feels confident.
(But it is stated as an opinion.
)  That's just crappy reporting.
(Or, in this case, not even reporting: copying and pasting.
)All that said, it'll be exciting if it turns up anything, but don't hold your breath.
There are just so many ways to contaminate the samples or to produce a lot of the effects that they've seen abiotically that I don't think we'll answer this question from Earth.
I suspect to get most scientists to agree that there's life, we'll have to find it in situ.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766876</id>
	<title>Re:I'd love to talk to someone knowledgeable about</title>
	<author>Dusty101</author>
	<datestamp>1263493620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent up: it's a good, concise, balanced reply.</p><p>I'd also recommend that anyone interested in following up this story look up some of the stuff by (e.g.) John Bradley on this as well, to provide a bit of a counterpoint, as the headline-grabbing articles tend to lack scientifi balance. The following link's a good few years old, and the work has moved on a bit, but it is a pretty good potted summary of the arguments for and against a biological origin of these structures.</p><p><a href="http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/Dec97/LifeonMarsUpdate2.html" title="hawaii.edu" rel="nofollow">http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/Dec97/LifeonMarsUpdate2.html</a> [hawaii.edu]</p><p>(Disclaimer: I'm an astrophysicist that works on astrochemistry, but I also don't personally do lab work on meteorites).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up : it 's a good , concise , balanced reply.I 'd also recommend that anyone interested in following up this story look up some of the stuff by ( e.g .
) John Bradley on this as well , to provide a bit of a counterpoint , as the headline-grabbing articles tend to lack scientifi balance .
The following link 's a good few years old , and the work has moved on a bit , but it is a pretty good potted summary of the arguments for and against a biological origin of these structures.http : //www.psrd.hawaii.edu/Dec97/LifeonMarsUpdate2.html [ hawaii.edu ] ( Disclaimer : I 'm an astrophysicist that works on astrochemistry , but I also do n't personally do lab work on meteorites ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up: it's a good, concise, balanced reply.I'd also recommend that anyone interested in following up this story look up some of the stuff by (e.g.
) John Bradley on this as well, to provide a bit of a counterpoint, as the headline-grabbing articles tend to lack scientifi balance.
The following link's a good few years old, and the work has moved on a bit, but it is a pretty good potted summary of the arguments for and against a biological origin of these structures.http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/Dec97/LifeonMarsUpdate2.html [hawaii.edu](Disclaimer: I'm an astrophysicist that works on astrochemistry, but I also don't personally do lab work on meteorites).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768676</id>
	<title>Re:Very close to proving is not proving...</title>
	<author>MightyMartian</author>
	<datestamp>1263499320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What fraction of Mars' surface have we actually explored with sufficient detail to even discover an algal bloom?  What's more, the few places we have actually landed something, we aren't able to get more than a few inches into the soil.  In short, it's like orbiting over the Amazon for a few years, landing a few probes with only limited measuring and detection capabilities and then declaring "How come we haven't found any tree frogs?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What fraction of Mars ' surface have we actually explored with sufficient detail to even discover an algal bloom ?
What 's more , the few places we have actually landed something , we are n't able to get more than a few inches into the soil .
In short , it 's like orbiting over the Amazon for a few years , landing a few probes with only limited measuring and detection capabilities and then declaring " How come we have n't found any tree frogs ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What fraction of Mars' surface have we actually explored with sufficient detail to even discover an algal bloom?
What's more, the few places we have actually landed something, we aren't able to get more than a few inches into the soil.
In short, it's like orbiting over the Amazon for a few years, landing a few probes with only limited measuring and detection capabilities and then declaring "How come we haven't found any tree frogs?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768946</id>
	<title>Re:I'd love to talk to someone knowledgeable about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263500280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly what is the theory of how rocks from Mars got here?  Was there some eruption so great that it hurled chunks of Mars into space, out of its planetary orbit and made the trip here?  I think I am missing something here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly what is the theory of how rocks from Mars got here ?
Was there some eruption so great that it hurled chunks of Mars into space , out of its planetary orbit and made the trip here ?
I think I am missing something here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly what is the theory of how rocks from Mars got here?
Was there some eruption so great that it hurled chunks of Mars into space, out of its planetary orbit and made the trip here?
I think I am missing something here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766584</id>
	<title>Re:Wait, huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263492720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe you should read the Bible less, and some science books more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe you should read the Bible less , and some science books more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe you should read the Bible less, and some science books more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766328</id>
	<title>Re:My psychic prediction</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1263491820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He was speaking about practical matters. It is fairly unlikely we will notice life in another galaxy, at least not anytime soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He was speaking about practical matters .
It is fairly unlikely we will notice life in another galaxy , at least not anytime soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He was speaking about practical matters.
It is fairly unlikely we will notice life in another galaxy, at least not anytime soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768788</id>
	<title>Re:Very close to proving is not proving...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263499740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the instrumental and sample preparation techniques.  On Earth, you can cut the rock in thin section so you can optically look through the minerals at great magnification (i.e. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrology" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">optical petrography</a> [wikipedia.org]), you can break or polish the surface and blast it with an electron beam under a scanning electron microscope or you can chemically analyze spots only a few microns in size (i.e. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron\_microprobe" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">microprobe</a> [wikipedia.org]).  You can do trace element geochemistry or isotopic analysis over a much wider range of elements and with much greater sensitivities, in most cases, including on extremely tiny samples of individual mineral grains.  On the whole, having a decent-sized piece of the stuff here on Earth allows for much more detailed analysis and use of a much more diverse and powerful set of instruments than what you can package on a rover or lander and put on Mars.</p><p>Plus it is HUGELY cheaper.  Heck, for the price of a nice flat-screen TV, even I could afford to buy <a href="http://www.meteorites.tv/10-martian-meteorites-for-sale" title="meteorites.tv" rel="nofollow">a bit of some martian meteorite</a> [meteorites.tv] and stick it in a microscope.  Not sure what I'd do to it that hasn't already been done, but the material is MUCH more accessible than in situ stuff on Mars is.  "Bring the sample to the lab" is usually less expensive than "bring the lab to the sample", and as nice as the current and planned rovers are, they are a significant compromise over what is available once you get the sample here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the instrumental and sample preparation techniques .
On Earth , you can cut the rock in thin section so you can optically look through the minerals at great magnification ( i.e .
optical petrography [ wikipedia.org ] ) , you can break or polish the surface and blast it with an electron beam under a scanning electron microscope or you can chemically analyze spots only a few microns in size ( i.e .
microprobe [ wikipedia.org ] ) .
You can do trace element geochemistry or isotopic analysis over a much wider range of elements and with much greater sensitivities , in most cases , including on extremely tiny samples of individual mineral grains .
On the whole , having a decent-sized piece of the stuff here on Earth allows for much more detailed analysis and use of a much more diverse and powerful set of instruments than what you can package on a rover or lander and put on Mars.Plus it is HUGELY cheaper .
Heck , for the price of a nice flat-screen TV , even I could afford to buy a bit of some martian meteorite [ meteorites.tv ] and stick it in a microscope .
Not sure what I 'd do to it that has n't already been done , but the material is MUCH more accessible than in situ stuff on Mars is .
" Bring the sample to the lab " is usually less expensive than " bring the lab to the sample " , and as nice as the current and planned rovers are , they are a significant compromise over what is available once you get the sample here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the instrumental and sample preparation techniques.
On Earth, you can cut the rock in thin section so you can optically look through the minerals at great magnification (i.e.
optical petrography [wikipedia.org]), you can break or polish the surface and blast it with an electron beam under a scanning electron microscope or you can chemically analyze spots only a few microns in size (i.e.
microprobe [wikipedia.org]).
You can do trace element geochemistry or isotopic analysis over a much wider range of elements and with much greater sensitivities, in most cases, including on extremely tiny samples of individual mineral grains.
On the whole, having a decent-sized piece of the stuff here on Earth allows for much more detailed analysis and use of a much more diverse and powerful set of instruments than what you can package on a rover or lander and put on Mars.Plus it is HUGELY cheaper.
Heck, for the price of a nice flat-screen TV, even I could afford to buy a bit of some martian meteorite [meteorites.tv] and stick it in a microscope.
Not sure what I'd do to it that hasn't already been done, but the material is MUCH more accessible than in situ stuff on Mars is.
"Bring the sample to the lab" is usually less expensive than "bring the lab to the sample", and as nice as the current and planned rovers are, they are a significant compromise over what is available once you get the sample here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766678</id>
	<title>Re:My psychic prediction</title>
	<author>MozeeToby</author>
	<datestamp>1263493020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't nuke the Drake equation, it just moves the tiny number one or two steps to the right.  We know that there are trillions of trillions of stars in the universe, we're slowly learning how many of them have planets and how many of those planets might be habitable.  If life is confirmed on Mars we'll begin to have an idea how common simple life is.  Unfortunatly, we also know that we haven't detected any alien civilizations, despite a few decades worth of looking.</p><p>The fact that we figure there are plenty of stars and planets that <b>could</b> support life but don'tmake contact means that one of the things we don't know about must be very unlikely.  Maybe life is exceedingly rare, something life on Mars would seem to refute.  Maybe intelligence is exceedingly rare, and the galaxy is filled with lush, but wild, environments.  Or maybe not all intelligence leads to producing technology that can facilitate interstellar communication.  After all, new research says that non-beamed radio will not travel as far as was previously thought, aliens more than a few dozen light years away won't be able to watch I Love Lucy reruns, it's washed out by the cosmic noise.</p><p>Then of course it's possible that technological civilizations don't survive very long.  We've only been technologically capable of attempting contact for 50 years or so, and we already have the means to kill every man, woman, and child on the planet if the wrong kind of fight breaks out.  Not to mention the possibility of environmental damage and depletion of resources (more because they will lead to war than because they would lead to extinction of humanity in and of themselves).</p><p>My rambling point is this:  Finding life on Mars doesn't mean that ET is out there, it means that there must be another reason that we haven't found ET yet.  It means that the origin of life isn't the hurdle, but the hurdle must still exist, otherwise we'd be seeing or hearing our neighbors by now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't nuke the Drake equation , it just moves the tiny number one or two steps to the right .
We know that there are trillions of trillions of stars in the universe , we 're slowly learning how many of them have planets and how many of those planets might be habitable .
If life is confirmed on Mars we 'll begin to have an idea how common simple life is .
Unfortunatly , we also know that we have n't detected any alien civilizations , despite a few decades worth of looking.The fact that we figure there are plenty of stars and planets that could support life but don'tmake contact means that one of the things we do n't know about must be very unlikely .
Maybe life is exceedingly rare , something life on Mars would seem to refute .
Maybe intelligence is exceedingly rare , and the galaxy is filled with lush , but wild , environments .
Or maybe not all intelligence leads to producing technology that can facilitate interstellar communication .
After all , new research says that non-beamed radio will not travel as far as was previously thought , aliens more than a few dozen light years away wo n't be able to watch I Love Lucy reruns , it 's washed out by the cosmic noise.Then of course it 's possible that technological civilizations do n't survive very long .
We 've only been technologically capable of attempting contact for 50 years or so , and we already have the means to kill every man , woman , and child on the planet if the wrong kind of fight breaks out .
Not to mention the possibility of environmental damage and depletion of resources ( more because they will lead to war than because they would lead to extinction of humanity in and of themselves ) .My rambling point is this : Finding life on Mars does n't mean that ET is out there , it means that there must be another reason that we have n't found ET yet .
It means that the origin of life is n't the hurdle , but the hurdle must still exist , otherwise we 'd be seeing or hearing our neighbors by now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't nuke the Drake equation, it just moves the tiny number one or two steps to the right.
We know that there are trillions of trillions of stars in the universe, we're slowly learning how many of them have planets and how many of those planets might be habitable.
If life is confirmed on Mars we'll begin to have an idea how common simple life is.
Unfortunatly, we also know that we haven't detected any alien civilizations, despite a few decades worth of looking.The fact that we figure there are plenty of stars and planets that could support life but don'tmake contact means that one of the things we don't know about must be very unlikely.
Maybe life is exceedingly rare, something life on Mars would seem to refute.
Maybe intelligence is exceedingly rare, and the galaxy is filled with lush, but wild, environments.
Or maybe not all intelligence leads to producing technology that can facilitate interstellar communication.
After all, new research says that non-beamed radio will not travel as far as was previously thought, aliens more than a few dozen light years away won't be able to watch I Love Lucy reruns, it's washed out by the cosmic noise.Then of course it's possible that technological civilizations don't survive very long.
We've only been technologically capable of attempting contact for 50 years or so, and we already have the means to kill every man, woman, and child on the planet if the wrong kind of fight breaks out.
Not to mention the possibility of environmental damage and depletion of resources (more because they will lead to war than because they would lead to extinction of humanity in and of themselves).My rambling point is this:  Finding life on Mars doesn't mean that ET is out there, it means that there must be another reason that we haven't found ET yet.
It means that the origin of life isn't the hurdle, but the hurdle must still exist, otherwise we'd be seeing or hearing our neighbors by now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768152</id>
	<title>Re:I'd love to talk to someone knowledgeable about</title>
	<author>Hadlock</author>
	<datestamp>1263497700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just out of curiosity, how unique are isotope ratios? Are there any areas on earth that are similar, or match the isotope ratios found in the samples? In other words, is it at all possible for something like this to have originated on earth based on that data?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just out of curiosity , how unique are isotope ratios ?
Are there any areas on earth that are similar , or match the isotope ratios found in the samples ?
In other words , is it at all possible for something like this to have originated on earth based on that data ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just out of curiosity, how unique are isotope ratios?
Are there any areas on earth that are similar, or match the isotope ratios found in the samples?
In other words, is it at all possible for something like this to have originated on earth based on that data?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766808</id>
	<title>Re:Conclusive proof</title>
	<author>kanweg</author>
	<datestamp>1263493440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, we're not able to grow many of microbes here on earth either, e.g. those extremophiles dug up from 1 km down. Doesn't mean we don't know they're really real.</p><p>Bert</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , we 're not able to grow many of microbes here on earth either , e.g .
those extremophiles dug up from 1 km down .
Does n't mean we do n't know they 're really real.Bert</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, we're not able to grow many of microbes here on earth either, e.g.
those extremophiles dug up from 1 km down.
Doesn't mean we don't know they're really real.Bert</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766930</id>
	<title>Re:My psychic prediction</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1263493860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And the distances involved would be so vast that even finding them (much less communicating with them) is probably out of the question. Is it out there *somewhere*? Probably. Will we ever see it? Extremely unlikely.</i></p><p>Well in your original post you said you predicted this test for life on Mars (and future tests based on your prediction of remaking the same prediction) would be negative.  That seemed to strongly imply your "alone in the dark" comment was regarding the rarity of life itself.</p><p>That's <i>completely different</i> than saying that intelligent life probably exists out there, but it's too far away for us to have a meaningful interaction with.  It's also a pretty trivial statement to say to the crowd who is following the search for life.  We already know that barring FTL it's going to be damn hard to find or especially talk to any alien civilization.  We'd have to be damn lucky (or life turn out to be damn ubiquitous) to find sentient aliens somewhere as close as Alpha Centauri.  Otherwise there's no way to be sure that by the time we detect aliens then send a message back to them that they aren't long extinct, or vice versa on aliens detecting us.</p><p><i>So, like I said, for all practical intents and purposes we're all alone in the vast empty. </i></p><p>Now that I know what you actually meant by that, I just want to say that there's no way you can go from that statement to the previous and following statements that there is and never has been life on Mars.</p><p><i> Every other planet in our solar system has so far proven to be more sterile than an operating theater, devoid of even the simplest life.</i></p><p>Except that's the very thing that's under scrutiny, now isn't it?  "So far proven" means little more than we point our telescopes at it and don't see a body literally transformed by life.  We're talking about the possibility of simple microbial life, past or present on Mars.  If found, even if they're ancient fossils and the planet is currently as dead as a cursory glance seems to indicate, it still means the number of planets that had the potential to host life goes from one to two.  It means we have to expand our view of where life can form or survive, and it means we would need to start looking closer at all those other bodies that "so far" we assume are dead.</p><p>You could have just as easily said that planetary systems themselves were incredibly rare because outside of our own we hadn't found any.  But that's because we lacked the ability to detect them.  Now that we do, we're finding them everywhere.  Finding life on another planet is much harder than finding a planet itself, so let's let the scientists do their work before we make any more "predictions" eh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And the distances involved would be so vast that even finding them ( much less communicating with them ) is probably out of the question .
Is it out there * somewhere * ?
Probably. Will we ever see it ?
Extremely unlikely.Well in your original post you said you predicted this test for life on Mars ( and future tests based on your prediction of remaking the same prediction ) would be negative .
That seemed to strongly imply your " alone in the dark " comment was regarding the rarity of life itself.That 's completely different than saying that intelligent life probably exists out there , but it 's too far away for us to have a meaningful interaction with .
It 's also a pretty trivial statement to say to the crowd who is following the search for life .
We already know that barring FTL it 's going to be damn hard to find or especially talk to any alien civilization .
We 'd have to be damn lucky ( or life turn out to be damn ubiquitous ) to find sentient aliens somewhere as close as Alpha Centauri .
Otherwise there 's no way to be sure that by the time we detect aliens then send a message back to them that they are n't long extinct , or vice versa on aliens detecting us.So , like I said , for all practical intents and purposes we 're all alone in the vast empty .
Now that I know what you actually meant by that , I just want to say that there 's no way you can go from that statement to the previous and following statements that there is and never has been life on Mars .
Every other planet in our solar system has so far proven to be more sterile than an operating theater , devoid of even the simplest life.Except that 's the very thing that 's under scrutiny , now is n't it ?
" So far proven " means little more than we point our telescopes at it and do n't see a body literally transformed by life .
We 're talking about the possibility of simple microbial life , past or present on Mars .
If found , even if they 're ancient fossils and the planet is currently as dead as a cursory glance seems to indicate , it still means the number of planets that had the potential to host life goes from one to two .
It means we have to expand our view of where life can form or survive , and it means we would need to start looking closer at all those other bodies that " so far " we assume are dead.You could have just as easily said that planetary systems themselves were incredibly rare because outside of our own we had n't found any .
But that 's because we lacked the ability to detect them .
Now that we do , we 're finding them everywhere .
Finding life on another planet is much harder than finding a planet itself , so let 's let the scientists do their work before we make any more " predictions " eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the distances involved would be so vast that even finding them (much less communicating with them) is probably out of the question.
Is it out there *somewhere*?
Probably. Will we ever see it?
Extremely unlikely.Well in your original post you said you predicted this test for life on Mars (and future tests based on your prediction of remaking the same prediction) would be negative.
That seemed to strongly imply your "alone in the dark" comment was regarding the rarity of life itself.That's completely different than saying that intelligent life probably exists out there, but it's too far away for us to have a meaningful interaction with.
It's also a pretty trivial statement to say to the crowd who is following the search for life.
We already know that barring FTL it's going to be damn hard to find or especially talk to any alien civilization.
We'd have to be damn lucky (or life turn out to be damn ubiquitous) to find sentient aliens somewhere as close as Alpha Centauri.
Otherwise there's no way to be sure that by the time we detect aliens then send a message back to them that they aren't long extinct, or vice versa on aliens detecting us.So, like I said, for all practical intents and purposes we're all alone in the vast empty.
Now that I know what you actually meant by that, I just want to say that there's no way you can go from that statement to the previous and following statements that there is and never has been life on Mars.
Every other planet in our solar system has so far proven to be more sterile than an operating theater, devoid of even the simplest life.Except that's the very thing that's under scrutiny, now isn't it?
"So far proven" means little more than we point our telescopes at it and don't see a body literally transformed by life.
We're talking about the possibility of simple microbial life, past or present on Mars.
If found, even if they're ancient fossils and the planet is currently as dead as a cursory glance seems to indicate, it still means the number of planets that had the potential to host life goes from one to two.
It means we have to expand our view of where life can form or survive, and it means we would need to start looking closer at all those other bodies that "so far" we assume are dead.You could have just as easily said that planetary systems themselves were incredibly rare because outside of our own we hadn't found any.
But that's because we lacked the ability to detect them.
Now that we do, we're finding them everywhere.
Finding life on another planet is much harder than finding a planet itself, so let's let the scientists do their work before we make any more "predictions" eh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766300</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30776648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30776172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30773532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30769452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30774030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30769642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30778900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30771908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30775716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30776018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30769220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30773758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30774522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30769112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30773086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30778320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30769358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30771070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30772100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30771798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30771422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30776660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30769388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30774300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30770410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30775132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1530254_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1530254.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30775716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30776018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767316
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1530254.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766454
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1530254.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765970
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1530254.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767280
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1530254.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766490
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768152
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30772100
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30769358
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766876
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768946
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30769388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768092
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30769452
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30771070
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30776172
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30774300
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30774030
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1530254.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30773532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30776648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766584
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767010
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1530254.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30778900
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1530254.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30770410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766808
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1530254.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30770636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1530254.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766910
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1530254.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765808
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30769112
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30773758
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765930
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30775132
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766300
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767966
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766930
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767246
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767594
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30776660
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30765836
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766250
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766270
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30769220
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767238
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30774522
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768366
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766974
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768052
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30768688
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30771422
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30769642
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766366
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766678
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30773086
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30771908
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30778320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766238
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767452
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30771798
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30766598
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1530254.30767630
</commentlist>
</conversation>
