It's not the first time they've found "proof".  The real question is... "Is it proof".

Lots of times, well EVERY time I should say... the media has totally messed up what was really being said.

Also

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2057461,00.html

Seems like it was published in what I like to call a "goal based journal."

See, anyone can start up a scientific journal, if you have money... and a number of journal's exist soley for peoples goals.  Basically, every "Law and Order" type scientific argument that's put in court is run through a "Goal based" jounral.

oldschoolfool said: I don't believe this bs,just like they supposedly found evidence of bigfoot and the lochnest monster and etc,etc. We have all these secret aliens and monster's roaming the world. I repeat we would have known about all of this along time ago if this was true. Let me guess,It's a massive goverment cover-up. Again,I call BS on the whole thing.

...

You're comparing an article in a scientific journal to bigfoot.

Why would we have known about this ages ago if true? It's fossilised bacteria on a meteorite, not some anal probing alien.

 

I'm genuinely hoping your post was just trolling.

Rath said: oldschoolfool said: I don't believe this bs,just like they supposedly found evidence of bigfoot and the lochnest monster and etc,etc. We have all these secret aliens and monster's roaming the world. I repeat we would have known about all of this along time ago if this was true. Let me guess,It's a massive goverment cover-up. Again,I call BS on the whole thing. ... You're comparing an article in a scientific journal to bigfoot. Why would we have known about this ages ago if true? It's fossilised bacteria on a meteorite, not some anal probing alien.   I'm genuinely hoping your post was just trolling.

While what he said likely wasn't informed.

From the sound of it, the reputation of the journal in which the study was pubished is actually somewhat lower then bigfoot.

Ok, just been reading through the journal article (only briefly), and I realised I came across the journal of cosmology once before, only to find that it's a poor quality journal.

I think I'm satisfied that what has been found isn't contamination, but I'm still not convinced that what has been found is alien life. I'm not entirely sure that I understood much of what I read and I think I'm going to either wait to see what comes of this (what the astrobiologists say), then maybe that'll help me understand a little better.

And just to let you guys know, the long bacteria in the op is not a photo of the bacteria Dr Hoover has claimed to have found, that photo was just used as an example of bacterial life on Earth. The bacteria that he has claimed to have found is this...

-edit-

I've also just found out that whilst Dr Hoover works for NASA, this article was written entirely with no actual link to NASA, he wrote it independently. NASA have also said that there is no scientific evidence to support his claim and that he's made this claim for many years, in fact a quick Google just showed me that he's actually published similar claims before.

oldschoolfool said: I don't believe this bs,just like they supposedly found evidence of bigfoot and the lochnest monster and etc,etc. We have all these secret aliens and monster's roaming the world. I repeat we would have known about all of this along time ago if this was true. Let me guess,It's a massive goverment cover-up. Again,I call BS on the whole thing.

Here's the deal with that. If there where intelligent Life from another star even the closest star. They would be so far advanced then us that you would't now if they where standing right next to you. Thats why I'm very skeptical about sightings. You would see them only if they let you see them.

Think the nearest star is 4 light years away. You know how long 4 light years away is? It's far as sh-t. Meaning the fastest thing we know of takes four years to travel from there to here. So if they can do distances like that, they are 1000 of years more advanced then us. They most likely can cut time space in half and travel through wormholes. Which means you will  not see them, detect them or hear them unless they wanted you to. They could do things we could not imagine. So do I think there here? Not sure and am always skeptical about anything that doesn't have a whole lot of proof behind it. Reason Why I'm  agnostic.

Now not believeing That life is out there I think is just not thinking of the size if the universe. I think we will find primitive life in our own solar system, not to mention other solar systems. Water is the key and Europa seems to be the place to look. Not to think there is life out there is in my mind is ignorant. It just depends on where.

We have 400,000,000,000 stars in our own galaxy, there are billions of galaxies with billions of stars in them. You mean to tell me that there is not any life out there. Our own galaxy is a 100,000 light years accross. Seti hasn't even searched 5% of our own galaxy let alone other galaxies and thats for intelligent life.

The Drake equation states that:

where:

N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible;

and

R^* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxyf_p = the fraction of those stars that have planetsn_e = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planetsf_â„“ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some pointf_i = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent lifef_c = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into spaceL = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space

Using this formula research came up with this answer for the milky way galaxy alone.

In a recent paper published online by the International Journal of Astrobiology, graduate student Duncan Forgan of the Royal Observatory, Edinburgh, in Scotland set up a numerical model of the universe under different scenarios of biogenesis. His model relies on current observational knowledge of stars and planetary systems, as well as some assumptions about the viability of life and its ability to evolve into an advanced, intelligent form. If life can only arise under a narrow set of initial conditions, Forgan estimates there should be 361 advanced, stable civilizations in the Milky Way. If life can spread from one planet to another through biological molecules embedded in asteroids, though, the number jumps to nearly 38,000. (Even given a densely populated galaxy, Forgan notes, there is no guarantee of immediate mutual contact.)

highwaystar101 said: Ok, just been reading through the journal article (only briefly), and I realised I came across the journal of cosmology once before, only to find that it's a poor quality journal. I think I'm satisfied that what has been found isn't contamination, but I'm still not convinced that what has been found is alien life. I'm not entirely sure that I understood much of what I read and I think I'm going to either wait to see what comes of this (what the astrobiologists say), then maybe that'll help me understand a little better. And just to let you guys know, the long bacteria in the op is not a photo of the bacteria Dr Hoover has claimed to have found, that photo was just used as an example of bacterial life on Earth. The bacteria that he has claimed to have found is this... -edit- I've also just found out that whilst Dr Hoover works for NASA, this article was written entirely with no actual link to NASA, he wrote it independently. NASA have also said that there is no scientific evidence to support his claim and that he's made this claim for many years, in fact a quick Google just showed me that he's actually published similar claims before.

See this is why I was skeptical about the article but thought it would be informative just to debate or talk about.

The Drake equation is complete rubbish. Every single part of it is an assumption.

Mars was warmer, had surface water and had a thicker atmosphere in the past.  That is the most likely origin of alien life on meteors, if this is in fact life.

The fossil of a cyanobacteria in a meteor?

I heard that talk before. Many times. It even was the cover of the Nature magazine over a decade ago before a group of high school students replicated the alien fossil wannabe it with a chunck of rock and a block of ice. Astrophysics blasted their reputation away claiming to find life or organic compounds in space.

Take it with some iceberg-sized grain of salt.

Rath said: The Drake equation is complete rubbish. Every single part of it is an assumption.

Yes it is but if you use it in a pessimisistic way you still come with lots of intelligent life. The point is that there should be life out there no matter how low the the numbers are in the equation. 

It's a guess.

I wish people would look a religion the same way they judge science.  Oh yea, there would be none left to talk about.