Thanks to several decades of mars exploration we do know today that at some point mars used to have a dense atmosphere, maybe even respirable. And we do know mars used to have a significant amount of surface water aka oceans. Today not.

Yog's point, is that since we don't know IF it was a sudden change, like the dinossaurs extinction which was sudden, the reason to classify this as catastrophic change is clearly that we see the current state as worse than the earlier state. Why do we do that value atribution? Ideology obviously, antropomorphic ideology that assumes planetary conditions that are closer to ours on Earth are "better". Well, are they? :)

But of course, no way anyone could be making a deeper point about humanity's place in the universe in the context of water being found on another planet. No, of course it's right / left politics and climate change... whatever, I didn't hear the man, never will... you might be right.

Well actually...

Damn robots...

Anyway, the news hinted apparently rather low amounts of water if I understood right, so we are still way off of oceans,

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/sep/28/nasa-scientists-find-evidence-flowing-water-mars

Someone needs to activate that alien device under the Mars surface already.

Rush Limbaugh is essentially conservative that argues like a liberal. I cant stand him; he should leave angry emotion-driven rants to the left-wing, those of use who are on the right-wing don't enjoy such tirades.
Did you really just compare gravity to outdated pseudoscience?

And now I feel like playing Red Faction again

Just don't play the sequel. It sucks!

and yogsloth, I really like having you here in the forum but come on. "...how do we know the catastrophe happened?" You're better than that!

I wasn't on the Titanic when it sank but I'm pretty sure that piece of shit went down. XD

Have to say I don't care about this dude, at all.

He's one of those guys that you'd want to argue with, but don't, because you realize how futile it would be.

well, something happened to cause all that water to evaporate off the planet's surface. Imagine an ocean larger than the atlantic and taking up 19% of the surface of Mars disappearing. In order for liquid water to remain on Mars, there needs to be an atmosphere. Since the water is now gone, something needed to happen to destroy the atmosphere.

Some hypothesize that the volcanic eruptions along with comet/astroid impacts caused the atmosphere to be destroyed, leading all the water to evaporate into space. They believe this happened around 4billion years ago. you can get a better explanation here: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jul/18/curiosity-rover-mars

"As Mars became a planet and its magma ocean solidified, catastrophic outgassing occurred while volatiles were delivered by impact of comets and other smaller bodies," said Dr Webster. "Solar wind, and the possible impact by a Pluto-sized body is thought to have stripped much of the initial early atmosphere from the planet, and since then the atmosphere has developed as a balance between volcanic injection and loss to space."

and that's why we are sending out the rovers and satellites, to study Mars better and learn what happened. :)

Yeah I remember it being pretty bad. Severe case of consolitis if I recall. Think I'd rather watch that mars film with the ice cube dude, and that species chick!

valid research that it's a psuedoscience or it's not true! :)

Now if your faith leads to you believe that evolution isn't true and the earth was created how your belief system specified, then I can't touch you, no one can disprove faith. However, when you start making your belief sound like science to further your religion's agendas (teaching christian religion in schools), then you have entered my world of Science, where claims need to be supported with educated hypothesises, years of studies, analysis and peer reviews.

So if you want to say, "my faith system doesn't work with evolution", fine. But when you start throwing words around like "psuedoscience", I'd appreciate some form of research to back up your claims.

Edit: and yes, I am assuming your problem with evolution is a faith-based one, and that was wrong of me. It could be epigenetics for all i know.

The right-wing in the US is completely despicable. In other countries the right will make appeals to nationalism and patriotism, ie the "common good". In the US the right just no longer even care about disguising it, it's just "I'm rich and I don't want to share!" and "fuck the poor!" without any shame or humility. Just selfishness and greed.

I mean how can you even claim to be patriotic/nationalistic if you don't give a flying fuck about the conditions of your fellow countrymen? What is a nation but the people who inhabit it?

Rush is a parody of right wing thoughts. Sadly, he passes it off as really believing what he talks about. But he comes across as more akin to Stephen Colbert from the Colbert Report. He says what he says for sensationalism so people will keep tuning in so he can rake in those sponsor dollars. He's funny and occasionally slips into normal human being mode, but mostly he's a walking posterboard for all extreme right points of view, some of which contradict each other. It is literally impossible for an intelligent human being to agree with all the points his show agrees with.
What exactly is wrong with the idea of "I worked for it, I earned it, I want to keep it?" Why should the people who worked for their money and raked in the dough have to share it with the people not smart enough or strong enough to earn the same? I'm not rich by ANY stretch of the imagination. But I do believe in earning my own keep. That's what most conservatives feel, at least. It's not about protecting the rich specifically, because most people don't give two shits about the rich. It's about protecting the little guy who barely earns enough to get by, but pays a far higher tax percentage than the extremely rich guy so that the losers who can't or won't make money are allowed to continue polluting the country with their stench.