Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How about "organism", "cell", or "microbe"?
It failed in evolution, but it succeeded in being happy.It is the same thing. In your example, the rat failed in evolution.
I would stick with the term: non-animal.
Do we have a pretty good definition on what an animal is on the earth?
There you go.1. A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure.
Gravity is not a constant, and we would expect it to have been different in the early development of our solar system before the planets settled in their present orbits.No its not actually, because of the gravity difference.
There is evidence the planets gathered much closer to each other in the recent past.Mars ejecta can reach escape velocity much more easily than Earth ejecta can. Not saying it couldn't happen ever, just saying Earth -> Mars is a lot less likely than Mars -> Earth.
Gravity is not a constant, and we would expect it to have been different in the early development of our solar system before the planets settled in their present orbits.
That doesn't change the fact that Mars to Earth is more likely than Earth to Mars.There is evidence the planets moved much closer to each other in the recent past.
Do you know anything about the Plasma Universe?Do you know anything about physics?
That would depend on which physics you are referring to. Big Bang physics can take a hike.I mean, anything? At all?
That’s debatable.Gravity, as a whole, is constant.
Thanks for agreeing with me.The gravitational pull of objects can change, however, if they gain or lose mass.
Before the planets settled in their present orbits they did not have the same mass as they do now.Whether the planets are settled in their orbits or not doesn't mean they gain or lose mass, however. It simply means they settled in their orbit.
We are not talking about when life developed; we are talking about forces that could transfer rocks from Earth to Mars.I also doubt that life could have formed on a planet without a stable orbit.
It absolutely does.That doesn't change the fact that Mars to Earth is more likely than Earth to Mars.
It's been confirmed. The rest of the cosmos is sterile.
Except in Hollywood.
Sure, why not?
Scientists like to tell us that life on Earth could have came from Mars, so it also likely that life on Mars could have came from Earth.
Do you know anything about the Plasma Universe?
That would depend on which physics you are referring to. Big Bang physics can take a hike.
It isn't. The force of gravity itself is fixed. Not the gravitational pull of objects, but gravity itself.Thats debatable.
Thanks for agreeing with me.
Evidence, please?Before the planets settled in their present orbits they did not have the same mass as they do now.
So? How does that change their mass?In addition, if the planets were once gathered closer to each other as the evidence suggests, they would have experienced the gravitational effects of each other as well as the electrical effects.
In fact, some physicists believe gravity maybe an electrical phenomenon that can vary.
Yes, we are, but until now, I thought this had some relevance to the topic.We are not talking about when life developed; we are talking about forces that could transfer rocks from Earth to Mars.
Do you know how probability works?It absolutely does.
This has nothing to do with the topic. Once again, you have proven incapable of understanding even the simplest topics.The same attractive and repellent electrical forces occurring between the planets could have moved rocks from planet to planet similarly. This might also explain why the debris from the Grand Canyon is missing; it was probably hurled into space by the electrical forces that likely cut the Grand Canyon on Earth and the Valles Marineris on Mars.
I'll now add probabilities and gravity to my list of things you couldn't get right if someone forced you to at gunpoint, right next to evolution, radioactivity and geology.
It failed in evolution, but it succeeded in being happy.
The two things are separate. Just because you claim the opposite (with no evidence whatsoever) doesn't make your version right.
Um, why?
Why not? Humans are animals, too.OK, I see what you are talking about.
But, you should not use animal as an example. We are talking about human. Human is not animal. Your case does not apply to human.
Because according to evolution, as long as a cell appeared on an earth-like planet, then there will be animals show up on that planet.
Not quite sure if this was sarcasm or not but I'll assume the latter. Isn't it a bit ridiculous to assume the entire cosmos is sterile when we have only explored part of our own solar system?
Even within our own solar system we have only explored the moon or Mars on a small, unsatisfactory scale.
This implies the atmosphere has become thinner, but it doesn't state that the atmosphere is gone completely.
Why not? Humans are animals, too.
Because according to evolution, as long as a cell appeared on an earth-like planet, then there will be animals show up on that planet.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?