how evolution disproves space travel

  • 374 Replies
  • 54308 Views
*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #270 on: April 28, 2015, 10:27:08 PM »
Wow. You don't even know what your conclusion is. I will throw you a bone, your conclusion is that space travel is impossible (it is even in the thread title). Everything preceding that is necessarily a premise or support for a premise.

yes, that is my conclusion. that is precisely what mainframes stated as a premise, albeit with different wording. his counter argument assumed that the conclusion was false. it was a bad argument. the end.
i don't care whether you believe me, but at least recognize awful logic when it's presented.

I do recognize awful logic, that is why I am debating against you. You are currently ignoring my rebuttal against your premise that we have not observed an animal reach an altitude requires for space flight, which is disappointing for someone who complains about others ignoring what has been previously posted.

Anyway, since we have observed human space flight we know that your premises are flawed, ergo your conclusion is incorrect. Space flight is indeed possible. We do not have to assert this, you can observe it yourself. I sincerely hope you undertake this someday soon. You really do owe a lot of people apologies.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #271 on: April 29, 2015, 04:42:30 AM »
Animals can fly, but not high enough to go to space.

Sure they can.
All they need is a little help from a friend.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
You am no real Super Sand!

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #272 on: April 29, 2015, 07:46:13 AM »
Wow. You don't even know what your conclusion is. I will throw you a bone, your conclusion is that space travel is impossible (it is even in the thread title). Everything preceding that is necessarily a premise or support for a premise.

yes, that is my conclusion. that is precisely what mainframes stated as a premise, albeit with different wording. his counter argument assumed that the conclusion was false. it was a bad argument. the end.
i don't care whether you believe me, but at least recognize awful logic when it's presented.


Flight, you need to be able to fly to reach space
let me stop you right here. what trait, specifically, do you suggest ramping up to improve flight? flight itself is the sum of multiple components and, above a certain point, it is impossible to fly. it cannot be done. this is what i have been saying all along. flight is nothing to do with degree, it is entirely about capability.

Our counter argument:
Technology is managed many things impossible through evolution.

that's not a counter-argument, that's an assertion and almost a circular argument that's still been refuted multiple times. as you are clearly unfamiliar with any kind of logic, i would suggest you also research 'intermediate conclusions'. this too is a result of premises, which i have given multiple times, and every round earther has ignored.
you've lost this argument, just admit it.


Please point out the RAM, ROM, and CPU in a brain. Please do. Please point out the semiconductors which save states of ones and zeroes.
different materials, different names. if you think that's an argument, you're wasting time. the brain is barely understood as it is. save states are memory, the information it saves is in a different format (but it clearly possesses the ability to just save 0s and 1s if it so desires), for example. the rest is technobabble, and unanaswerable because it is still not fully understood exactly what areas of the brain do what, and how. it clearly processes informtaion, however: it could process 0s and 1s if it wants, we can see that from the fact a programmer must understand the code to write it.

as it is clear no one is paying attention to a word i'm saying, i'm going to quote rather than waste time repeating myself yet again.

stop being so desperate and pathetic, and read for once in your lives.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #273 on: April 29, 2015, 07:51:24 AM »
So what traits do you think are needed to produce space flight?

Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #274 on: April 29, 2015, 07:54:45 AM »
Just read the whole site. Space travel is a hoax, because the birds would get there first, if it would be possible? Sorry, i'm a noob, this site confuses me. What' going on here? Is this serious? Is this a debating game?

EDIT The whole thread, not the whole site.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2015, 08:07:00 AM by WallE »

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #275 on: April 29, 2015, 08:02:56 AM »
So what traits do you think are needed to produce space flight?

what, exactly, is wrong with you? i ask because you have demonstrated multiple times that you are incapable of reading a word, saying anything remotely relevant, or of accepting an answer. there is no point in talking to you when you are not going to read a word i say. i yet again ask you to read the thread and actually address a point i am making rather than wasting everybody's time.
i also suggest you look up some basic logical principles. i suggest you start with the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. only one necessary trait needs to be impossible. altitude has been that trait since the very start of this thread. please, try to actually read for once in your miserable little life.

walle, if you're not going to address a point in the thread, don't post here, there are many forums available for such questions.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #276 on: April 29, 2015, 08:09:50 AM »
Just read the whole site. Space travel is a hoax, because the birds would get there first, if it would be possible? Sorry, i'm a noob, this site confuses me. What' going on here? Is this serious? Is this a debating game?

EDIT The whole thread, not the whole site.

This is no debating game, us round earthers have been trying to talk some sense into the flat earthers for a long time.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #277 on: April 29, 2015, 08:13:18 AM »

walle, if you're not going to address a point in the thread, don't post here, there are many forums available for such questions.

But, you know... there is no space tarvel....why.....because there are no animals in space...you must admit, that sounds like a joke.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #278 on: April 29, 2015, 08:13:52 AM »
Wow. You don't even know what your conclusion is. I will throw you a bone, your conclusion is that space travel is impossible (it is even in the thread title). Everything preceding that is necessarily a premise or support for a premise.

yes, that is my conclusion. that is precisely what mainframes stated as a premise, albeit with different wording. his counter argument assumed that the conclusion was false. it was a bad argument. the end.
i don't care whether you believe me, but at least recognize awful logic when it's presented.



as it is clear no one is paying attention to a word i'm saying, i'm going to quote rather than waste time repeating myself yet again.

stop being so desperate and pathetic, and read for once in your lives.

I did read and responded.  Quoted below.  Feel free to answer although at this point all I expect is you slinging insults.  Cheers!

Wow. You don't even know what your conclusion is. I will throw you a bone, your conclusion is that space travel is impossible (it is even in the thread title). Everything preceding that is necessarily a premise or support for a premise.

yes, that is my conclusion. that is precisely what mainframes stated as a premise, albeit with different wording. his counter argument assumed that the conclusion was false. it was a bad argument. the end.
i don't care whether you believe me, but at least recognize awful logic when it's presented.

I do recognize awful logic, that is why I am debating against you. You are currently ignoring my rebuttal against your premise that we have not observed an animal reach an altitude requires for space flight, which is disappointing for someone who complains about others ignoring what has been previously posted.

Anyway, since we have observed human space flight we know that your premises are flawed, ergo your conclusion is incorrect. Space flight is indeed possible. We do not have to assert this, you can observe it yourself. I sincerely hope you undertake this someday soon. You really do owe a lot of people apologies.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #279 on: April 29, 2015, 08:18:15 AM »
So what traits do you think are needed to produce space flight?

<Angry Ranting>

Since when is altitude a trait you can evolve?  You can evolve winged flight, but the altitude you can achieve is, as you would say, a matter of degree.

Quote
walle, if you're not going to address a point in the thread, don't post here, there are many forums available for such questions.

Friendly Advice: You might want to familiarize yourself with the rules.  Memberating is against them. 
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #280 on: April 29, 2015, 08:53:19 AM »
So what traits do you think are needed to produce space flight?

what, exactly, is wrong with you?
Well, since you just claim that the traits possible for space travel haven't evolved yet, I would like you to answer my question of what traits would be required for space travel.  Simple question.  SImple answer.  You have yet answered that question.  Therefore, I continue asking it.
Quote
ask because you have demonstrated multiple times that you are incapable of reading a word,
Read every word you typed.  It is not my fault you can't make a coherent argument.
Quote
saying anything remotely relevant,
So asking you to answer questions about your own statements is not relevant?
Quote
or of accepting an answer.
Why should I accept an answer that obviously goes against what is observed without any supporting evidence?
Quote
there is no point in talking to you when you are not going to read a word i say. i yet again ask you to read the thread and actually address a point i am making rather than wasting everybody's time.
Once again, I have read your thread, not my problem you can't make a coherent argument.
Quote
i also suggest you look up some basic logical principles. i suggest you start with the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. only one necessary trait needs to be impossible.
OK, and I am asking you what those traits are that would be required for space travel to be possible?
Quote
altitude has been that trait since the very start of this thread.
Oh so altitude is a trait now?  If that is the case, speed is also a trait.  So what makes the biological limit of altitude a hard set limit that can not ever be surpassed, yet the biological limit of speed able to be surpassed?  You have yet to answer this one.  So please do so.

Quote
please, try to actually read for once in your miserable little life.
  Why do you get so angry when it is asked for you to back up your assertions and you resort to name calling?  Is it because you haven't thought through your arguments and are upset that people just don't accept them?
 
Quote
walle, if you're not going to address a point in the thread, don't post here, there are many forums available for such questions.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #281 on: April 29, 2015, 12:44:22 PM »
bj, i have posted the exact same post twice now. i suggest you read it, i do not want to have to post it a third time. do you really think it's smart to keep posting the same odl refuted bs?

rama, being able to reach altitude is a trait. i was being clear. i suggest you focus on the argument being made rather than semantics.
i also suggest you familiarize yourself with very basic logic. you seem incapable of understanding it. here's a starting logical statement for you "if space travel is not possible, it can not have happeed." if you don't agree with that statement, give up now, you're incapable of any reasoning.
if you do understand that, then congratulations. you now need to show that it is possible: my argument demonstrates it is not. it doesn't matter what fantasy examples you think you have, if my argument holds, they cannot be valid. i am sick of having to repeat this.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #282 on: April 29, 2015, 01:06:18 PM »
bj, i have posted the exact same post twice now. i suggest you read it, i do not want to have to post it a third time. do you really think it's smart to keep posting the same odl refuted bs?

rama, being able to reach altitude is a trait. i was being clear. i suggest you focus on the argument being made rather than semantics.
i also suggest you familiarize yourself with very basic logic. you seem incapable of understanding it. here's a starting logical statement for you "if space travel is not possible, it can not have happeed." if you don't agree with that statement, give up now, you're incapable of any reasoning.

You are saying "if space travel is not possible, it is not possible."  That is not the argument you have been espousing, so which is it?

Either way, empirical observation of space travel (i.e. The ISS in orbit, Space Shuttles in orbit), reception of radio signals from the Apollo astronauts, the millions of photographs from satellites and the ISS, NASA's extremely well-documented space missions, the ESA's well-documented space missions, astronaut testimony of their space travel, civilian testimony of their space travel, all of these things confirm that space travel has occured.  All that can be concluded is that your argument, whichever one you are pushing in the next post, is flawed.

Quote
if you do understand that, then congratulations. you now need to show that it is possible: my argument demonstrates it is not. it doesn't matter what fantasy examples you think you have, if my argument holds, they cannot be valid.

If your argument holds, you are right.  If space travel is impossible, it is impossible.  Unfortunately for you, your argument does not hold, which ever argument you are pushing next post.  There are literally thousands of valid counterexamples which you have never addressed.

Quote
i am sick of having to repeat this.

I don't particularly care.  I have patiently reiterated the fact that humans have been to space, and quite politely mentioned that this fact needs to be addressed, but you refuse to, other than to say, "Well it must be wrong, because I think necessary logic must trump contingent facts".  Sorry, it does not work that way.  Your arguments must incorporate the empirical truth of the world that we have travelled to space.  You do not, so your arguments are nothing more than metaphysical moaning.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #283 on: April 29, 2015, 01:19:56 PM »
i can't believe i need to walk you through this.
firstly, there are necessary and sufficient conditions. if something does not adhere to logic, it does not possess a necessary condition to be true. a logical argument against something, therefore, proves it cannot possibly be true. empirical evidence may be faked: it does not matter how unlikely you believe that is, but if there is a watertight argument against it, you cannot rely on those facts.
for example, let us suppose i told you i could fly. i then did so, and there were multiple witnesses, all of which you trust, confirming you didn't imagine it, as well as a film. it is possible i used some unknown machine to do it, or that there were skillfully concealed wires, but it would not seem automatically likely. however, you can mount a logical argument (based on weight) against a human's ability to fly unaided, so you would conclude that it needs to be one of those alternatives.

You are saying "if space travel is not possible, it is not possible."  That is not the argument you have been espousing, so which is it?
that is exactly the argument i am making, you just don't seem to understand the basic principle of logical reasoning. the conclusion of my argument is that space travel by techological means could not have occurred. i didn't feel the need to walk you through the most minor of details because i assumed you could think. apparently i was wrong. for a moment, assume my conclusion is accurate. i don't care if you believe it. if my conclusion is indeed accurate, however, any evidence you profess to have of space travel cannot be true. as i said, "if space travel is not possible, it can not have happened."
if you are arguing that space travel is indeed possible, you cannot simply assume that the conclusion is false in order to give an example (which, by the argument, must be rejected). you need to show why the conclusion does not hold: you need to addresses premises, not conclusions.
this is very, very basic logic. if you seriously do not grasp this, i honestly don't know what you're doing here. i don't care whether or not you agree with me on space travel at this point, you need to be able to grasp this principle.

your argument is a probability argument, not a logical one. you are arguing that it is more probable that the footage/evidence etc is genuine, than it is likely to be faked. even if there is only a 1% chance of faking, it must be that 1% chance if space travel is indeed impossible.
logic trumps probability. it is possible your evidence is faked. you have to acknowledge the possibility, anything else is closed-mindedness. i don't care whether you believe it would take alien overlords or centuries-ahead technology it is possible for that to be faked.
because of that possibility, your argument is not a counterexample. your argument is an assertion disproven by the conclusion of mine. you need to show that my conclusion does not hold, and the only way to do that is to actually address the premises.

this is very, very basic logic yet again. you can ask anyone who studies critical thinking or reasoning, they will agree with me (on this application of logic, at least).
you. need. to. address. the. premises.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #284 on: April 29, 2015, 01:29:03 PM »
even if there is only a 1% chance of faking, it must be that 1% chance if space travel is indeed impossible.
logic trumps probability. it is possible your evidence is faked. you have to acknowledge the possibility, anything else is closed-mindedness.

So is there a possibility...even 1% possibility that the footage is NOT faked...space travel has occurred and therefore all your logical conclusions and theories are incorrect?
Remember, evolution has never produced an Oreo in nature, therefore heart surgery is impossible.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #285 on: April 29, 2015, 01:33:35 PM »
even if there is only a 1% chance of faking, it must be that 1% chance if space travel is indeed impossible.
logic trumps probability. it is possible your evidence is faked. you have to acknowledge the possibility, anything else is closed-mindedness.

So is there a possibility...even 1% possibility that the footage is NOT faked...space travel has occurred and therefore all your logical conclusions and theories are incorrect?

that 1% possibility does not exist by the argument i have made. keep up. there is a difference between an argument based on logic, and an argument based on evidence.
logic is watertight. logic allows no exceptions. evidence however can mislead. you can show me a grey cat, that does not mean all cats are grey.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #286 on: April 29, 2015, 01:47:55 PM »
i can't believe i need to walk you through this.
firstly, there are necessary and sufficient conditions. if something does not adhere to logic, it does not possess a necessary condition to be true. a logical argument against something, therefore, proves it cannot possibly be true.

I have said nothing illogical, I have merely contradicted your argument.  This is simply means that one logical argument will hold true and the other will not in this world.  One will be contingent and one will be necessary.

Quote
empirical evidence may be faked: it does not matter how unlikely you believe that is, but if there is a watertight argument against it, you cannot rely on those facts.

Your argument is not watertight as it is contradicted by empirical evidence.  You can assert that it is fake, but that is claim that you must then provide evidence for.
 
Quote
for example, let us suppose i told you i could fly. i then did so, and there were multiple witnesses, all of which you trust, confirming you didn't imagine it, as well as a film. it is possible i used some unknown machine to do it, or that there were skillfully concealed wires, but it would not seem automatically likely. however, you can mount a logical argument (based on weight) against a human's ability to fly unaided, so you would conclude that it needs to be one of those alternatives.

It is possible, but until I have confirmed that indeed there is a valid counterexample I have not falsified my observations have I?  I can harbor doubts, very strong ones, and I would be right to do so, as no other human can fly unaided, but harboring doubts is not sufficient enough to show I am right and you were not flying.

Quote
You are saying "if space travel is not possible, it is not possible."  That is not the argument you have been espousing, so which is it?
that is exactly the argument i am making, you just don't seem to understand the basic principle of logical reasoning.

No, the argument you are making is:

P1. animals should have evolved to travel to space.
P2. animals have not evolved to travel to space
C. Space travel is impossible.

Quote
the conclusion of my argument is that space travel by techological means could not have occurred.

Yes, which is different than "if space travel is not possible, it is not possible."

Quote
i didn't feel the need to walk you through the most minor of details because i assumed you could think. apparently i was wrong.

If you do not want to put any work in to defending your position that is fine.  I am happy to defend mine.

Quote
for a moment, assume my conclusion is accurate.

Breathe in.  Breathe out.  Ok.  Ready.

Quote
i don't care if you believe it. if my conclusion is indeed accurate, however, any evidence you profess to have of space travel cannot be true. as i said, "if space travel is not possible, it can not have happened."

No, since you are making a necessary argument, that is, one that is not based on a posteriori knowledge, we can only deem it to be true in the real world if we find no valid counter examples.  The moment we find a valid counter example, then we know that your argument is merely metaphysically valid.

Quote
if you are arguing that space travel is indeed possible, you cannot simply assume that the conclusion is false in order to give an example (which, by the argument, must be rejected). you need to show why the conclusion does not hold: you need to addresses premises, not conclusions.

I have been over this probably 6 times in this thread.  In the OP, one of your premises is:

we observe no animals even being able to go close to the heights necessary

However there are many valid counter examples to this and so the premise is not valid meaning your conclusion:

we can conclude that it is not possible.

is invalid.

Quote
<irrelevant personal attack>

your argument is a probability argument, not a logical one. you are arguing that it is more probable that the footage/evidence etc is genuine, than it is likely to be faked. even if there is only a 1% chance of faking, it must be that 1% chance if space travel is indeed impossible.

Straw man.  I am not saying it is 99% likely that space travel has occured, I am saying it is 100% likely.

Quote
logic trumps probability. it is possible your evidence is faked.

Prove it.

Quote
you have to acknowledge the possibility, anything else is closed-mindedness. i don't care whether you believe it would take alien overlords or centuries-ahead technology it is possible for that to be faked.

I am open to your evidence, please present it.  Since there are so many observations of space travel, I am not open to a mere assertion that it may be impossible.  Just like I am not open to the possibility that Andorra does not exist.

Quote
because of that possibility, your argument is not a counterexample. your argument is an assertion disproven by the conclusion of mine.

You have not shown that any evidence is fake, much less all of it, and that is what is required.  Since your argument is not based in real world experience, you must cede your position to empirical evidence, of which there is a preponderance.  Logic does not take precedence over reality.

Quote
you need to show that my conclusion does not hold, and the only way to do that is to actually address the premises.

Which I have done.  Many times.

Quote
this is very, very basic logic yet again. you can ask anyone who studies critical thinking or reasoning, they will agree with me (on this application of logic, at least).

Please go get an opinion of someone who studies critical thinking.  I look forward to the results.

Quote
you. need. to. address. the. premises.

I. Have. Again. And. Again. 
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #287 on: April 29, 2015, 02:16:37 PM »
even if there is only a 1% chance of faking, it must be that 1% chance if space travel is indeed impossible.
logic trumps probability. it is possible your evidence is faked. you have to acknowledge the possibility, anything else is closed-mindedness.

So is there a possibility...even 1% possibility that the footage is NOT faked...space travel has occurred and therefore all your logical conclusions and theories are incorrect?

that 1% possibility does not exist by the argument i have made. keep up. there is a difference between an argument based on logic, and an argument based on evidence.
logic is watertight. logic allows no exceptions. evidence however can mislead. you can show me a grey cat, that does not mean all cats are grey.

Is there a 1% chance your logic is faulty? If your premise is false your conclusion is false even with correct logic. Is there a possibility your capability v. degree argument might be wrong? Of course. So your watertight argument is sunk.

You have not addressed that because evolution has not reached an ability that it is forever unreachable. (at one point the ability for sight had not evolved yet..but it did)

You have not demonstrated that the ability to fly to space is necessarily an advantage. ( if prey can adapt this way to escape, predators can adapt to hunt them, so what is the advantage? are the risk of flight at that altitude greater than the advantage of temporary escape given lack of food and air?)

You have not proven that such capability does not exist in birds or any other creature. Since you think all space evidence by man is faked you don't know there aren't birds there...thriving. Our inability to detect birds in space could very well be another element of NASA's deception.

You continue to incorrectly state height is a capability and not a matter of degree in your "logic"  when you insist increases in speed are simply degree? This is illogical. 

So please answer,  for a bird that currently can fly 10 ft off ground  would achieving flight at 100 ft  be a matter of degree , 200ft? 300 ft..when does it become capability and not simply a new degree of altitude? What is the speed a at which a bird would need a new capability? since Altitude has a point at which a new ability is needed and it is not a matter of degree, what is that point in speed?

It would appear you arbitrarily assign "capability" or "Degree" can you simply provide concrete properties of each?  Without these you run the risk of continuing to be misunderstood.
Remember, evolution has never produced an Oreo in nature, therefore heart surgery is impossible.

*

Techros

  • 308
  • Destroyer of Flat Worlds
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #288 on: April 29, 2015, 03:14:50 PM »
even if there is only a 1% chance of faking, it must be that 1% chance if space travel is indeed impossible.
logic trumps probability. it is possible your evidence is faked. you have to acknowledge the possibility, anything else is closed-mindedness.

So is there a possibility...even 1% possibility that the footage is NOT faked...space travel has occurred and therefore all your logical conclusions and theories are incorrect?

that 1% possibility does not exist by the argument i have made. keep up. there is a difference between an argument based on logic, and an argument based on evidence.
logic is watertight. logic allows no exceptions. evidence however can mislead. you can show me a grey cat, that does not mean all cats are grey.

I show someone you. It doesn't mean all flat-earthers are stupid. It doesn't mean they aren't, though.
FEH is like tying rubber ducks to your car to go across the pacific: it might work, but why not take a better way?

Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #289 on: April 29, 2015, 03:47:39 PM »
. you can show me a grey cat, that does not mean all cats are grey.


If I show you what appears to be a flat road, it doesn't mean the whole earth is flat.
Remember, evolution has never produced an Oreo in nature, therefore heart surgery is impossible.

*

Mikey T.

  • 3383
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #290 on: April 29, 2015, 04:20:01 PM »
Well humans have not evolved into flying creatures, living underwater creatures, or creatures that can move at speeds up to and beyond sonic speed.  Technology allows us to do so.
If technology can allow us to do one thing that nothing that ever evolved can do, then this entire premise is false. 

1) humans, who can't breath underwater can live in submerged vehicles and habitats indefinitely as long as they can get the necessities (food, water, oxygen),  No air breathing animal can do this.
2) humans travel regularly at speeds on the ground of over 80 MPH (those speeders out there) for extended periods.  (no animal can reach this speed on ground much less maintain it for hours)
3) humans can fly at supersonic speeds (no bird can do this, their bodies would not stand up to the stresses and air flow, basically getting ripped to shreds do to air friction)
4) humans can communicate with other humans over vast distances virtually instantaneously, (no creature creature can do this for the distances I am referring to).

So if any one of the above statements hold true, then the premise that technology cannot do what evolution has not, is false. 
If that premise is false, meaning technology can allow for actions to be done that evolution has not already developed, then the original premise is false.

Basically a failure of logical reasoning once again from someone who is grasping at straws.
Would you agree Rama set? 

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #291 on: April 29, 2015, 04:23:33 PM »
Yes, yes I would.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Techros

  • 308
  • Destroyer of Flat Worlds
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #292 on: April 29, 2015, 04:29:03 PM »
Funny how tenaciously he holds onto this hypothesis. Of course, he's never going to give up until someone wrenches his dead, stiff fingers from the keyboard.
FEH is like tying rubber ducks to your car to go across the pacific: it might work, but why not take a better way?

*

Mikey T.

  • 3383
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #293 on: April 29, 2015, 04:29:18 PM »
Awesome,TY.  This means I'm not that crazy yet, and logic still works. 

*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #294 on: April 30, 2015, 12:39:19 AM »
evolution allows life to improve over generations. it states life will mutate to become better suited to survival.

Evolution is not about improving. It does not state life will mutate to survive. The very fact that there are extinct species shows this to be untrue.

as we observe no animals even being able to go close to the heights necessary, we can conclude that it is not possible.
The most we can conclude is that space travel is not possible by natural means so far.
the higher up you go the easier ascent becomes (as gravity decreases).

Demonstrably untrue. It takes more effort to reach the top of a hill than to climb halfway up.

You claim to have constructed a logical argument but all you have done is conflated two non-overlapping areas and produced a syllogism. The essence of your argument is that if evolution hasn't done it then it is not possible. Cast your mind over all the things which technology and science have brought us and ask yourself how many of these things appear in nature without human intervention?

Further to your assertion that logic trumps evidence: Logic can only prove statements to be true or false in terms of the original axioms of that particular system of logic. It cannot make claims about statements which cannot be derived from those axioms. The universe is not derived from axioms. It does not care about logic. It functions in a natural way not a logical way.

No matter how beautiful a theory is if it doesn't match experiment or observation it is worthless.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #295 on: April 30, 2015, 06:13:29 AM »
rama. please, understand basic logic.
if a implies b is not true, and c implies b may be true, if a is true it does not matter what c says might be. c has other explanations.
you have not offered any 100% evidence. full stop. argument from observation is never 100%. ever. observations always have multiple explanations. what we do, is we take the simplest explanation (the one with fewest assumptions), and we make sure it's possible, and conclude that is the best alternative.
my point to you as the same as my one to mathsman. unless you are saying the universe does not adhere to logic, in which case there is no point in having any kind of discussion with you, you have lost this argument do to your constant evasion whenever you are asked to address premises rather than conclusions.
a conclusion is only false if one or more premise is. would you care to share which, or would you just like to evade?

mikewolf, logic does not work like that. logic is watertight, probabilities don't enter into it like they do with evidence.
i have repeatedly defined capability and degree, and have given explicit examples. stop ignoring every word i say, i have no desire to repeat myself when it seems clear you will just ignore me yet again.

mikey, i have had to make the exact same post multiple times. READ IT. your bs is completely debunked there, and has been for the majority of this thread. what is wrong with you?!
you don't seem to understand a thing about evolution. i don't give a damn what individuals are capable of, i'm not talking about a lone species, i am talking about everything. if you cannot grasp that it is entirely your stupidity that is at play. not a single argument i have made holds unless you apply it to all species. why can you manage nothing beyond straw men?
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

Rayzor

  • 11826
  • Looking for Occam
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #296 on: April 30, 2015, 08:26:55 AM »
If you bring extended phenotypes into the discussion,   the phenotype is an outward manifestation of a genetic characteristic,  the extended phenotype is likewise a manifestation of a genetic characteristic,  like beavers building dams,  like ants who build huge ant hills,  it has been proven that beaver dam building behaviour is genetic, not learned.   

Maybe an argument that could be made that the human ability to master technology and build machines is a genetic thing,  perhaps we are genetically programmed that way.  If that is the case then it's possible that space travel could be an evolutionary step.   There are obvious survival advantages to such a step.   
« Last Edit: April 30, 2015, 08:35:57 AM by Rayzor »
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #297 on: April 30, 2015, 08:39:31 AM »
rama. please, understand basic logic.
if a implies b is not true, and c implies b may be true, if a is true it does not matter what c says might be. c has other explanations.
you have not offered any 100% evidence. full stop. argument from observation is never 100%. ever.

Then your argument fails on that basis.  You have made an observational argument in that you have a premise saying we have never observed an animal that has achieved the necessary altitude to go to space.  Your observation of a lack of evidence is not 100%, therefore, your premise is fallible especially when confronted with the simple and concise observation of human space travel.

Quote
observations always have multiple explanations. what we do, is we take the simplest explanation (the one with fewest assumptions), and we make sure it's possible, and conclude that is the best alternative.

Space travel is possible and it is the best alternative.  There is a host of mathematical proof for it, there are millions of photographs taken from space.  There is eyewitness testimony of astronauts and civilian space tourists.  There is amateur and professional photography of the ISS and space shuttles in space, etc, etc...

Quote
my point to you as the same as my one to mathsman. unless you are saying the universe does not adhere to logic, in which case there is no point in having any kind of discussion with you,

The universe does not adhere to logic, logic is a human abstraction for what we believe is organized behavior in a causal universe.  Human abstraction does not take precedence over empirical reality.

Quote
you have lost this argument do to your constant evasion whenever you are asked to address premises rather than conclusions.

I addressed the premises, clearly and succinctly.

Quote
a conclusion is only false if one or more premise is. would you care to share which, or would you just like to evade?

Already done.  Please address my points instead of just saying I have not.  If you think that space travel has not occurred it is incumbent upon you to give evidence.  I will patiently await such evidence.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #298 on: April 30, 2015, 08:41:39 AM »
If you bring extended phenotypes into the discussion,   the phenotype is an outward manifestation of a genetic characteristic,  the extended phenotype is likewise a manifestation of a genetic characteristic,  like beavers building dams,  like ants who build huge ant hills,  it has been proven that beaver dam building behaviour is genetic, not learned.   

Maybe an argument that could be made that the human ability to master technology and build machines is a genetic thing,  perhaps we are genetically programmed that way.  If that is the case then it's possible that space travel could be an evolutionary step.   There are obvious survival advantages to such a step.

I think this is pretty correct, although I would generalize away from "mastering technology" to evolving the necessary cognitive ability to do so. It is not a big distinction, but a distinction nonetheless.

Unfortunately, Jrowe is making the absurd argument that unless space travel is possible without technology, it is impossible with technology.  A laughable argument to say the least.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #299 on: April 30, 2015, 11:58:13 AM »
Once again, Jrowe addresses everything with nothing but handwaving and assertions.

So please try to answer these couple questions, without evasion.

1)What is fundamentally different between altitude and speed that makes reaching higher than evolution has allowed impossible,but reaching speeds faster than evolution has allowed obtainable.  Please try to do more that say one is a matter of degree and one is a matter of capability without actually explaining why.

2) Explain how your argument actually flows.  You can't just say that biological limits set technological limits without actually explaining why.

Because, the way I see it, speed of flight, and many other things that have been brought up, directly disprove your argument that Since evolution hasn't produced X, X is impossible.