middle of a field with nothing else around they would say "This muddly puddle may have been caused by rain". They are saying this is the most likely conclusion based on the evidence that they have. However, they are not dismissing the possibility that the muddy puddle could have been caused by an unseen spring, a person who dumped a lot of water there, or some other phenomenon they didn't think of. In science there is *very* little that is 100% certain which is why conclusions that are drawn are couched in terms expressing possibility rather than certainty. Also, this is a conclusion -- based on the evidence that they have they, what they know about geology, their knowledge of chemistry and other science that feel that an ocean is the *best* explanation for what they see. That's a conclusion. Great explanation! Always disturbing to see how ignorant most people are about Science. February 7, 2012 at 12:18 pm | disagreement At first I kind of think, eh we don't really have the money to fund this research. But then I think, well we should probably start figuring out how to colonize other planets before we nuke each other to death. Not to mention the financial returns produced by scientific innovation and technology. February 7, 2012 at 12:20 pm | MyTake Why when there is an interesting article concerning life and new evidence do the lunatic theist stop by to ignorantly rant about what they don't know about? Why to