Would life on Mars be a problem for your religious beliefs?

[juvenissun]

How about "organism", "cell", or "microbe"?

I would stick with the term: non-animal.

Do we have a pretty good definition on what an animal is on the earth?

 

[The Engineer]

It is the same thing. In your example, the rat failed in evolution.

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.

 

[The Engineer]

I would stick with the term: non-animal.

Do we have a pretty good definition on what an animal is on the earth?

animal - definition of animal by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

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.

There you go.

 

[florida2]

As long as there were no animals, the evolution theory is finished.

Um, why?

 

[Doveaman]

No its not actually, because of the gravity difference.

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.

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.

There is evidence the planets gathered much closer to each other in the recent past.

 

[The Engineer]

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.

Do you know anything about physics? I mean, anything? At all?

Gravity, as a whole, is constant. The gravitational pull of objects can change, however, if they gain or lose mass.

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.

I also doubt that life could have formed on a planet without a stable orbit.

There is evidence the planets moved much closer to each other in the recent past.

That doesn't change the fact that Mars to Earth is more likely than Earth to Mars.

 

[Doveaman]

Do you know anything about physics?

Do you know anything about the Plasma Universe?

I mean, anything? At all?

That would depend on which physics you are referring to. Big Bang physics can take a hike.

Gravity, as a whole, is constant.

That’s debatable.

The gravitational pull of objects can change, however, if they gain or lose mass.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

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.

Before the planets settled in their present orbits they did not have the same mass as they do now.

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.

I also doubt that life could have formed on a planet without a stable orbit.

We are not talking about when life developed; we are talking about forces that could transfer rocks from Earth to Mars.

That doesn't change the fact that Mars to Earth is more likely than Earth to Mars.

It absolutely does.

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.




.

 

[serge546]

It's been confirmed. The rest of the cosmos is sterile.

Except in Hollywood.

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.

 

[serge546]

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.

I could not find any literature reviews over hypotheses involving life from Mars going to earth on the Science Direct database.

I'm assuming you are talking about the ALH 84001 meteorite which supposedly contained fossilized bacteria and other chemicals thought to be produced by life only. As far as I can tell, these claims have never been verified or taken very seriously in the scientific community.

The only aspect of this meteorite taken seriously in the scientific community appears to be its use in understanding early martian atmosphere its chemical composition and other chemical peculiarities. There are numerous peer reviewed articles over this.

Hence, I see no real point or evidence to your post.

 

[The Engineer]

Do you know anything about the Plasma Universe?

Well, thanks for the link, although it was completely unrelated to anything I said.

That would depend on which physics you are referring to. Big Bang physics can take a hike.

No. No, it doesn't depend. So far, I haven't seen one scientific topic in which you had even average knowledge.

That’s debatable.

It isn't. The force of gravity itself is fixed. Not the gravitational pull of objects, but gravity itself.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

I didn't agree with you. I told you the difference between gravity as a whole changing and the gravitational pull of objects changing, a difference you don't know about, apparently.

Before the planets settled in their present orbits they did not have the same mass as they do now.

Evidence, please?

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.

So? How does that change their mass?

In fact, some physicists believe gravity maybe an electrical phenomenon that can vary.

Do they state, as you do, that gravity itself can change? If so, then I demand a quote. I don't have the time to read the entire link just to find the mysterious line that you didn't bother to quote and that probably doesn't even support your view.

We are not talking about when life developed; we are talking about forces that could transfer rocks from Earth to Mars.

Yes, we are, but until now, I thought this had some relevance to the topic.

It absolutely does.

Do you know how probability works?
If the Earth and the Mars were closer together, the probability that rocks from one planet would land on the other planet would be greater; still, the probability that rocks from Mars would reach Earth would be greater than the opposite.

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.

This has nothing to do with the topic. Once again, you have proven incapable of understanding even the simplest topics.

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.

 

[GodActsOnMe]

Just to tell you guys, the planets were not bunched closer together during the formulation of our solar system. They were kept about where they were among the rings in the nebula. My evidence is more reliable and reputable than a Youtube video.

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.

Add quantum physics to that list.

 

[freezerman2000]

subscribing

 

[juvenissun]

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.

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.

 

[juvenissun]

Um, why?

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.

 

[The Engineer]

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.

Why not? Humans are animals, too.

 

[freezerman2000]

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.

Just because another planet is earthlike, does not necessarily mean that conditions on that planet are conducive for evolution.There may be something in the chemical make up of what ever it is that the life is in that stops further development in it's tracks.
That life form may not even need to evolve at all.
Anyway, If there is evidence of life forms from the past or present found on other planets,it wouldn't phase my faith on bit.It would strengthen it.

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

Given the distances involved, "the reality" of the situation makes no difference.
The time it would take to even pass the knowledge back to us renders the information of no value.
"The rest of the cosmos is sterile" is a falsifiable claim. A perfectly legit scientific theory.
Only the only complaints are religious viewpoints.

 

[SkyWriting]

This implies the atmosphere has become thinner, but it doesn't state that the atmosphere is gone completely.

There is no "implied" view of Mars atmosphere. The scientific viewpoint is:

Update: Why Mars is Losing Its Atmosphere -A Mystery Solved?

NASA mission asks why Mars has no atmosphere

Mars: Cool Place, Not Much Atmosphere | BU Today | Boston University


Anybody who claims that Mars has no atmosphere is more right than wrong.

 

[SkyWriting]

Why not? Humans are animals, too.

You may be. Humans have chosen not to live as animals. That's HOW we live. The reality of civilization trumps any biologists views.

 

[florida2]

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.

Says who?

Conditions on Mars or wherever may not be able to support complex multicellular life.