2 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

And how do you know that other planets have no life on them? And how do you know there are other planets? And how do you know you are a being separate from what you call this planet?

Uneducated is the only excuse here.

1 hour ago, Rockyroad said:

0% of earth patterns are chaos.

While the physical laws governing Earth are deterministic, scientists often introduce stochastic (random) terms into climate and weather models. This isn't because nature is inherently random, but because human computers lack the computing power to measure every single air molecule or leaf on Earth.

Humans invented the "physical laws governing the Earth." In reality, there are no physical laws. All is chaos.

The stochasticism inherent in climate and weather models, and everything else you can think of, is because fundamentally, they are chaotic. Humans impose a logical, cause-and-effect structure on these chaotic features to make ourselves feel that we "understand" and can have some control over them. And, yes, our deterministic models work well, well enough for us to feel they are reality. But all of the laws, from time to time, exhibit some illogical, confusing behavior. That is because the laws we made are not absolutely accurate. They are just a logical representation of reality, which, at its fundamental core, is chaotic.

10 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

"Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, sulfur, and phosphorus" are just names we give to conjugations of chaos that form enough of a pattern that we think they are unique and separate. They actually are not. There is no absolute demarcation of where hydrogen stops and oxygen begins. They overlap and, because of that, are chaotic.

Those two elements don't overlap in chaos. They form water. H2O.

7 minutes ago, ArchieBunker said:

Did you skip science class and smoke weed instead or something?

No, in fact, I did both. I did smoke weed occasionally, and I have a bachelor's degree in computer science and engineering. I also write poetry and fictional books. So, I am not bound by logic and reason, and I know the difference between it and human intuition.

12 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

And how do you know that other planets have no life on them? And how do you know there are other planets? And how do you know you are a being separate from what you call this planet?

We have no proof there are no life forms on any planets outside our solar system. Within that system, the outermost are too cold to sustain life, the inner too hot to have water, which is needed for life. Jupiter and Saturn have extreme pressures and a non solid surface, and Venus is carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid, impossible to have life either. Mars too thin an atmosphere to block radiation.

3 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Those two elements don't overlap in chaos. They form water. H2O.

My point is, water, H2O, if broken down completely, is not made up of ONLY of molecules made up of 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom. Some of the molecules have different compositions, and even the hydrogen and oxygen atoms are not all the same. Our rationalization and declaration that water is made up of H2O is, as I've been saying, imposing a pattern on something that is not entirely accurate. It's just a logical pattern we need to establish to classify a group of molecules as "water."

4 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

We have no proof there are no life forms on any planets outside our solar system. Within that system, the outermost are too cold to sustain life, the inner too hot to have water, which is needed for life. Jupiter and Saturn have extreme pressures and a non solid surface, and Venus is carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid, impossible to have life either. Mars too thin an atmosphere to block radiation.

My brief response is that you are restricting the definition of "life" to only the types you are familiar with.

Just now, WDSmart said:

My brief response is that you are restricting the definition of "life" to only the types you are familiar with.

Life as we know it is the only forms we know about. God has made a wondrous universe, and I suppose there might be beings that don't need what earth's life does. Until we see evidence, we can think there aren't any other.

4 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

My point is, water, H2O, if broken down completely, is not made up of ONLY of molecules made up of 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom. Some of the molecules have different compositions, and even the hydrogen and oxygen atoms are not all the same. Our rationalization and declaration that water is made up of H2O is, as I've been saying, imposing a pattern on something that is not entirely accurate. It's just a logical pattern we need to establish to classify a group of molecules as "water."

The basic elements are those, but self ionization creates Hydronium and Hydroxide. They're still a part of Hydrogen and Oxygen.

Edited August 8Aug 8 by fredwiggy

4 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Life as we know it is the only forms we know about. God has made a wondrous universe, and I suppose there might be beings that don't need what earth's life does. Until we see evidence, we can think there aren't any other.

I think you've used a phrase that pretty much sums up ALL my posts here about science.

That phrase is "as we know it."

On 8/6/2026 at 7:21 PM, scottiejohn said:

Quote the lie(s) with scources!

Autism is caused by Tylenol - RFK Jr

2 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

The basic elements are those, but self ionization creates Hydronium and Hydroxide. They're still a part of Hydrogen and Oxygen.

So, H2O isn't ONLY two hydrogen atoms adhering to one oxygen atom. That's what I said in my previous comment, and that is what you can say about EVERY "law" associated with science.

8 minutes ago, jaywalker2 said:

Autism is caused by Tylenol - RFK Jr

Maybe that's why when I spilled a box of toothpicks on the floor and guessed the amount, I was off by 13. Not sure, but I do buy my underwear at K-Mart.

5 hours ago, ArchieBunker said:

What it looks like here is your inability to grasp what science is.

You too and clearly neither of you finished primary school and instead graduated from the school of hard knocks and labor.

That would be incorrect.

Alas, even people who insist they believe in the scientific method will occasionally believe in junk science or in mumbo jumbo when it suits their bigotry or prejudices.

3 hours ago, ColeBOzbourne said:

The rotation of a planet is not a 'yearly cycle', it's a 'daily cycle'. The revolution of a planet represents the 'yearly cycle'.

What is the term for one revolution of a galaxy by a solar system or a star system?

If not one day, nor one year, then what is it?

2 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

What is the term for one revolution of a galaxy by a solar system or a star system?

A Galactic Year or Cosmic Year. I had to look that one up.

54 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Humans invented the "physical laws governing the Earth." In reality, there are no physical laws. All is chaos.

The stochasticism inherent in climate and weather models, and everything else you can think of, is because fundamentally, they are chaotic. Humans impose a logical, cause-and-effect structure on these chaotic features to make ourselves feel that we "understand" and can have some control over them. And, yes, our deterministic models work well, well enough for us to feel they are reality. But all of the laws, from time to time, exhibit some illogical, confusing behavior. That is because the laws we made are not absolutely accurate. They are just a logical representation of reality, which, at its fundamental core, is chaotic.

Chaos lol

Chiang Mai is hot every year in April and Cool in December. Southern whales migrant north in winter. All systematic and nothing random.

57 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

They are just a logical representation of reality, which, at its fundamental core, is chaotic.

Even plants follow basic systems. They need nutrients, sun and water.

A human baby takes mouths to form inside the womb. If it was random you would have births after 1 month and 10 years.

You obviously are a stoned hippy type who dreams up crazy stuff.

37 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Life as we know it is the only forms we know about. God has made a wondrous universe, and I suppose there might be beings that don't need what earth's life does. Until we see evidence, we can think there aren't any other.

The same building blocks that made life here are everywhere in the universe. We know material gets blasted from planets and travels through space, and even DNA can survive under the right conditions.

My best guess is life, or the seeds for life, travel through space and time and start again where the conditions are right. That makes a lot more sense to me than thinking Earth is some unique little island in the universe.

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

The same building blocks that made life here are everywhere in the universe. We know material gets blasted from planets and travels through space, and even DNA can survive under the right conditions.

My best guess is life, or the seeds for life, travel through space and time and start again where the conditions are right. That makes a lot more sense to me than thinking Earth is some unique little island in the universe.

I think not.

Travel in space full of radiation?

No Way, Jose.

Life evolved from organic compounds right here on Earth.

Just give me a few spontaneously arising amino acids, and time.

This is all it requires...

A lot of time.

IF true scientific methodology is used then yes I believe in it. Not 100% as our current understanding of all things is very much limited. The methodology I don't believe in is science that is funded by a large company to get a specific result. In such cases true methodology is ignored in favour of the money.

On 8/6/2026 at 10:35 PM, Wingate said:

Most? Like >50%?

I must have missed that. Do you mean like the Earth is actually flat? It's only 6000 years old? Disease is caused by demons? There isn't really a Higgs boson? Shoot, I was finally getting comfortable with how mass is generated. Can you tell me why photons have no mass, yet they can be affected by gravity? That one has always stumped me.

Or are you just upset that somebody---not actual scientists--- gave you too many genders to keep track of?

I was unaware you're holding several advanced degrees in the scientific disciplines. Maybe you can write a piece for AN on the Schrodinger Equation. For lots of folks here, I bet it's all just Greek to them.

Could you please provide a link to your PhD dissertation?

6 hours ago, WDSmart said:

I was just using the word the original poster used. I should have used the term "orbit" instead of "rotate."

Yearly orbit. Not random. Ocean waves look random but surfers may know better. Animal behaviour is not random.

7 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

I think not.

Travel in space full of radiation?

No Way, Jose.

Life evolved from organic compounds right here on Earth.

Just give me a few spontaneously arising amino acids, and time.

This is all it requires...

A lot of time.

Read about Lithopanspermia!

7 hours ago, Photoguy21 said:

IF true scientific methodology is used then yes I believe in it. Not 100% as our current understanding of all things is very much limited. The methodology I don't believe in is science that is funded by a large company to get a specific result. In such cases true methodology is ignored in favour of the money.

That is not science. Maybe junk science.

7 hours ago, Photoguy21 said:

IF true scientific methodology is used then yes I believe in it. Not 100% as our current understanding of all things is very much limited. The methodology I don't believe in is science that is funded by a large company to get a specific result. In such cases true methodology is ignored in favour of the money.

Nobody said scientists (and "science journalists") can't be greedy and corrupt.

59 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Read about Lithopanspermia!

It's not necessary.

Any life blasted off Earth, traveling to Mars, would die, just as an example.

Why do we even need to consider such scenarios when life evolving on Earth, rather than coming from some other star, is easier and more likely.

30 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

It's not necessary.

Any life blasted off Earth, traveling to Mars, would die, just as an example.

Why do we even need to consider such scenarios when life evolving on Earth, rather than coming from some other star, is easier and more likely.

It is a problem when you dismiss theories or ideas without even bothering to read about them, especially in a thread about the scientific method. You question established science yourself, but seem very quick to dismiss an idea before investigating whether there is actually science behind it.

Well anyway, we travel through space, and so do ice comets. The reason I questioned this in the first place comes from high-pressure deep sea drilling. In wells with temperatures above 200°C, we could still experience ice like hydrate plugging and lost circulation if glycol was not used in the mud or drilling fluid.

That made me wonder if the extreme pressure from a massive asteroid impact could eject material containing water and living organisms, followed by rapid decompression and cooling, freezing and encapsulating microorganisms before sending them into space. And in theory, yes, that is possible.

The part I find interesting is living microorganisms that can survive, repair themselves and reproduce again.

Deinococcus radiodurans has survived years of exposure in space and remained viable. So if an asteroid impact can eject material without sterilising everything, and some organisms become protected inside rock or ice, then the idea is not really science fiction anymore. The real question is how long they could survive the full journey and still reproduce at the other end.

30 minutes ago, Hummin said:

It is a problem when you dismiss theories or ideas without even bothering to read about them, especially in a thread about the scientific method. You question established science yourself, but seem very quick to dismiss an idea before investigating whether there is actually science behind it.

I am not "dismissing" this idea or the possibility.

I am only saying that the simplest explanation is usually the best explanation, unless there is any evidence against the simpler explanation.

Why consider the more complicated potential possibilities first?

There is no point in that, even though there are so very many possibilities.

And, of course, we know that there is life far down in the lithosphere of Earth, due to deep drilling samples we have seen.

These samples of bacteria are embedded in rock formations, quite deep.

It is quite interesting that microorganisms can be found in the lithosphere up to 5 kilometers below the surface.

So, is it possible that a large chunk of rock could be blasted away from Earth by an asteroid strike?

Yes, possible.

However, it might be more interesting to investigate how life originates from existing conditions on Earth, billions of years ago.

EVEN IF we were to agree that life on Earth came from some other star system, many light-years away, carried on interstellar dust or inside rock blown out from some faraway star system, then this does not really explain the chemical processes of the origin of life.

By the way: Just how long would it require for a chunk of rock to travel 50 light-years, anyway?

If the rock left at over escape velocity, from Earth, at maybe 20 km/second, then we are looking at about a million years.

But, how many planets with life exist within a 50-light-year radius?

Anyway, I think we must re-evaluate the statistical probability for life, other than life on Earth, existing elsewhere in our own galaxy.

For these reasons: It is always best, in science, to go with the simplest conditions that satisfy some observation. In this case, the observation that life evolved here on Earth.

One cannot entirely dismiss ANYTHING, of course.

Edited August 8Aug 8 by GammaGlobulin