how evolution disproves space travel

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?

The truth table for a implies b
a   b   a implies b
1   0         0
1   1         1
0   0         1
0   1         1

If a implies b is not true then a is true and b is false. If a implies b is true then a may be true or false.

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.

Why must the universe behave logically? Logic is a creation of the human mind.

I like the idea of technology being a genetic ability of humans.  Since we see some rudimentary tool use in other species, then the complexity of those tools demonstrates a degree of tool use, which is in fact an evolutionary trait then.  So evolution did produce space flight with human;s use of tool making and use (technology).   

So to answer the premise, yes evolution did develop space travel, so the conclusion is that space travel is possible.

The original OP was wrong about evolution's role in technology development.

An interesting discussion on the limitations of logic as it applies to the real world.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=45520.0

Why must the universe behave logically? Logic is a creation of the human mind.

No.  No it's not.  Your computer is doing logic right now and it does that by exploiting the predictable logical behavior of electrons.  The fact that the universe obeys the laws of physics proves that the universe behaves logically.

Quote from: mathsman on April 30, 2015, 02:02:13 PM

Why must the universe behave logically? Logic is a creation of the human mind.

No.  No it's not.  Your computer is doing logic right now and it does that by exploiting the predictable logical behavior of electrons.  The fact that the universe obeys the laws of physics proves that the universe behaves logically.

All this is irrelevant because JRS's argument is not logical.

Quote from: mathsman on April 30, 2015, 02:02:13 PM

Why must the universe behave logically? Logic is a creation of the human mind.

No.  No it's not.  Your computer is doing logic right now and it does that by exploiting the predictable logical behavior of electrons.  The fact that the universe obeys the laws of physics proves that the universe behaves logically.

My computer works by exploiting the predictable physical behaviour of its components.

A logical system consists of a series of axioms and rules for combining them. It is a completely abstract structure.It does not have to correspond with anything in nature. We may apply logic to help us understand the universe but the universe is not logical. Do not confuse predictability with logic.

So it looks like, by mathsman's truth table, that Jrowes argument can be both logically valid and have false premises and a false conclusion. I can settle for that, even though his conclusion still seems like a non sequitur.

Quote from: mathsman on April 30, 2015, 02:02:13 PM

Why must the universe behave logically? Logic is a creation of the human mind.

No.  No it's not.  Your computer is doing logic right now and it does that by exploiting the predictable logical behavior of electrons.  The fact that the universe obeys the laws of physics proves that the universe behaves logically.

They don't do logic by exploiting predictable logical behavior of particles, they do that by exploiting the predictable behaviors of particles that humans INSTILLED them. Machines don't think, machines work in the way they're programmed. Logic is a rational view based on common thinking of people. People base they view on their accidents only on Earth, and as we know, Earth is not a lone planet. On other planets, in other places of the universe, things might get very illogical.

And by the way - JRowe uses arguments that he deduces something on something and it's wrong, because he bases his ideas on previously not proved things. That means his wrong, that means DFE and FE is wrong. And if DFE and FE is wrong, then this site shouldn't exist. And by the way - we all know that FE is wrong. It needs a huge conspiracy, which is impossible.

Why must the universe behave logically? Logic is a creation of the human mind.

I do not understand that. When the universe does not behave logical, how come logic can be applied to understand what's going on in it?

Quote from: mathsman on April 30, 2015, 02:02:13 PM

Why must the universe behave logically? Logic is a creation of the human mind.

I do not understand that. When the universe does not behave logical, how come logic can be applied to understand what's going on in it?

We see causal connections and call them logic often in the form of physical laws, but that is merely a cognitive system of interpretation.  There could potentially be alternate ways to interpret the same event that are not bound to logical principles.  Perhaps we will one day discover a completely intuitive and irrational way to interpret the universe that is more accurate than what we currently find.  It is possible, and so we must allow that logic is something we impose on the universe rather than it being implicit.  This was best exemplified in the development of quantum mechanics; it was completely illogical to us at the time until we adjusted our notion of what logical is.

This is the essential message: logic adjusts to what we observe, not the other way around as Jrowe would have you believe. 

Quote from: mathsman on April 30, 2015, 02:02:13 PM

Why must the universe behave logically? Logic is a creation of the human mind.

I do not understand that. When the universe does not behave logical, how come logic can be applied to understand what's going on in it?

Logic can be applied to build models of the universe's behaviour. Some of these models will involve algebra. Is the universe algebraic?

We can only understand the universe in terms of our own making subject to our own limitations. The universe may be audacious enough not to be limited by our intellect and imagination.

Quote from: WallE on May 01, 2015, 06:55:46 AM

Quote from: mathsman on April 30, 2015, 02:02:13 PM

Why must the universe behave logically? Logic is a creation of the human mind.

I do not understand that. When the universe does not behave logical, how come logic can be applied to understand what's going on in it?

Logic can be applied to build models of the universe's behaviour. Some of these models will involve algebra. Is the universe algebraic?

We can only understand the universe in terms of our own making subject to our own limitations. The universe may be audacious enough not to be limited by our intellect and imagination.

I still do not understand that. If something in the universe would happen contradicting any kind of logic - for example discovering a flat planet floating through space on the back of a huge turtle - we had to admit, that the universe is magical rather than logical. But so far it seams to follow our kind of logic. There may be things not explainable by mere logic (sure there are), but there are no things happening contradicting our logical princioles, or are there?

There's nothing wrong in trying to apply logic to the universe - in fact, it's rather noble but we must keep a sense of humility about us when we do it. We are unlikely to know everything and we are unlikely to know anything with 100% certainty. Even quantum mechanics may someday bowl us a googly (throw us a curve ball).

I still do not understand that. If something in the universe would happen contradicting any kind of logic - for example discovering a flat planet floating through space on the back of a huge turtle - we had to admit, that the universe is magical rather than logical. But so far it seams to follow our kind of logic. There may be things not explainable by mere logic (sure there are), but there are no things happening contradicting our logical princioles, or are there?

If we were to discover a flat planet on the back of a giant turtle then the universe is still behaving according to its own nature. The fact that we would have to tear up the science books is neither here nor there: the universe allows giant planet-carrying turtles. Evidence is everything.

My computer works by exploiting the predictable physical behaviour of its components.

A logical system consists of a series of axioms and rules for combining them. It is a completely abstract structure.It does not have to correspond with anything in nature. We may apply logic to help us understand the universe but the universe is not logical. Do not confuse predictability with logic.

The universe could not be predicted with logic if logic is just s human invention.

Quote from: WallE on May 01, 2015, 07:56:38 AM

I still do not understand that. If something in the universe would happen contradicting any kind of logic - for example discovering a flat planet floating through space on the back of a huge turtle - we had to admit, that the universe is magical rather than logical. But so far it seams to follow our kind of logic. There may be things not explainable by mere logic (sure there are), but there are no things happening contradicting our logical princioles, or are there?

If we were to discover a flat planet on the back of a giant turtle then the universe is still behaving according to its own nature. The fact that we would have to tear up the science books is neither here nor there: the universe allows giant planet-carrying turtles. Evidence is everything.

But a universe that allows giant planet-carrying turtles would not be logical. In such a universe we couldn't be sure of anything. The most hilarious and ridiculous things we but had to expect to happen. It would be a magical universe. It is not the universe we observe. So why does the universe follow our logic, if logic is only man-made?

Quote from: mathsman on May 01, 2015, 12:40:03 AM

My computer works by exploiting the predictable physical behaviour of its components.

A logical system consists of a series of axioms and rules for combining them. It is a completely abstract structure.It does not have to correspond with anything in nature. We may apply logic to help us understand the universe but the universe is not logical. Do not confuse predictability with logic.

The universe could not be predicted with logic if logic is just s human invention.

I disagree.  The universe acts as it acts.  No logic needed.  Humans have created logical systems to explain what is seen in the universe.  Logic is a human construct to explain what we see. 

Quote from: mathsman on May 01, 2015, 08:02:11 AM

Quote from: WallE on May 01, 2015, 07:56:38 AM

I still do not understand that. If something in the universe would happen contradicting any kind of logic - for example discovering a flat planet floating through space on the back of a huge turtle - we had to admit, that the universe is magical rather than logical. But so far it seams to follow our kind of logic. There may be things not explainable by mere logic (sure there are), but there are no things happening contradicting our logical princioles, or are there?

If we were to discover a flat planet on the back of a giant turtle then the universe is still behaving according to its own nature. The fact that we would have to tear up the science books is neither here nor there: the universe allows giant planet-carrying turtles. Evidence is everything.

But a universe that allows giant planet-carrying turtles would not be logical. In such a universe we couldn't be sure of everything. The most hilarious and ridiculous things we but had to expect to happen. It would be a magical universe. It is not the universe we observe. So why does the universe follow our logic, if logic is only man-made?

A universe that would allow giant planet-carrying turtles would only seem illogical because we have created logic based on what we have seen prior.  The universe couldn't care less about what we think is logical or illogical.

But a universe that allows giant planet-carrying turtles would not be logical. In such a universe we couldn't be sure of everything. The most hilarious and ridiculous things we but had to expect to happen. It would be a magical universe. It is not the universe we observe. So why does the universe follow our logic, if logic is only man-made?

The universe does not follow our logic. The universe is awash with counter-intuitive elements. Is the duality of light logical? The idea of an observor influencing the outcome of an experiment by the mere act of observation of that experiment - is that logical? What then, of objectivity? Of certainty?

if we cannot use logic to describe the universe, why are any of you here? if logic does not work, none of your arguments make any sense either.

mathsman, i fail to see of what relevance that truth table is. i understand logic, it's rama who struggles with such principles.
if a implies not b, then if a is true, b cannot be true. probaility arguments don't even come close to a response, i can't believe you people are still relying on them. logic is watertight, probability is not. if you are saying it is completely impossible, on any world in any universe, for the so-called evidence of space travel to be faked, then give up on discussion because you are incapable of any thought. if you do want to hold that it must be impossible, give the reaosn. note, i am asking for a 100% watertight logical argument, not "but it's unlikely that..." because probability does not trump logic.
amazing that rama constantly asserts space travel is proven and has yet to give any evidence beyond "you know!"
you love your hyporcisy.

bj, READ THE FUCKING POST ALREADY. i have referred you to it several times. do you really think ignoring me yet again counts for anything? seriously, you seem incapable of actually acknowledging a word i say. it's pathetic.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63375.msg1683445
look at that, your bs about flight HAS ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH MULTIPLE FUCKING TIMES

as for the rest of you, the conclusion is that technology could not lead to space travel because the ability to do so has not evolved, given that evolution has far better resources and far more time to develop capabilities than humans. look at that, yet another none of you ever ever acknowledged, let alone rebutted.

Quote from: mathsman on May 01, 2015, 12:40:03 AM

My computer works by exploiting the predictable physical behaviour of its components.

A logical system consists of a series of axioms and rules for combining them. It is a completely abstract structure.It does not have to correspond with anything in nature. We may apply logic to help us understand the universe but the universe is not logical. Do not confuse predictability with logic.

The universe could not be predicted with logic if logic is just s human invention.

There have been plenty of occasions when logic has failed to predict the universe.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on May 01, 2015, 08:10:55 AM

Quote from: mathsman on May 01, 2015, 12:40:03 AM

My computer works by exploiting the predictable physical behaviour of its components.

A logical system consists of a series of axioms and rules for combining them. It is a completely abstract structure.It does not have to correspond with anything in nature. We may apply logic to help us understand the universe but the universe is not logical. Do not confuse predictability with logic.

The universe could not be predicted with logic if logic is just s human invention.

There have been plenty of occasions when logic has failed to predict the universe.

so you believe your attempts to use reasoning to deduce facts about the universe, such as the shape of the earth, fail?
if you aren't going to be consistent, don't waste time.

if we cannot use logic to describe the universe, why are any of you here? if logic does not work, none of your arguments make any sense either.

To defend our observation that space travel has occured.

mathsman, i fail to see of what relevance that truth table is. i understand logic, it's rama who struggles with such principles.
if a implies not b, then if a is true, b cannot be true. probaility arguments don't even come close to a response, i can't believe you people are still relying on them. logic is watertight, probability is not. if you are saying it is completely impossible, on any world in any universe, for the so-called evidence of space travel to be faked, then give up on discussion because you are incapable of any thought. if you do want to hold that it must be impossible, give the reaosn. note, i am asking for a 100% watertight logical argument, not "but it's unlikely that..." because probability does not trump logic.

Evidence trumps logic.  We have evidence, you don't.  [/thread]

amazing that rama constantly asserts space travel is proven and has yet to give any evidence beyond "you know!"
you love your hyporcisy.

That is actually not what I have done.  Please re-read my posts.

as for the rest of you, the conclusion is that technology could not lead to space travel because the ability to do so has not evolved, given that evolution has far better resources and far more time to develop capabilities than humans. look at that, yet another none of you ever ever acknowledged, let alone rebutted.

Darwin showed that human intervention can do the job of evolution but much faster.  Perhaps you should read On the Origin of Species.  Regardless, you have not shown that evolution absolutely constrains technology, so you are also making a probability argument: evolution probably constrains technological development.  The problem is that we have evidence that space travel has happened, whereas you do not have evidence for your position.

Quote from: WallE on May 01, 2015, 08:13:28 AM

Quote from: mathsman on May 01, 2015, 08:02:11 AM

Quote from: WallE on May 01, 2015, 07:56:38 AM

I still do not understand that. If something in the universe would happen contradicting any kind of logic - for example discovering a flat planet floating through space on the back of a huge turtle - we had to admit, that the universe is magical rather than logical. But so far it seams to follow our kind of logic. There may be things not explainable by mere logic (sure there are), but there are no things happening contradicting our logical princioles, or are there?

If we were to discover a flat planet on the back of a giant turtle then the universe is still behaving according to its own nature. The fact that we would have to tear up the science books is neither here nor there: the universe allows giant planet-carrying turtles. Evidence is everything.

But a universe that allows giant planet-carrying turtles would not be logical. In such a universe we couldn't be sure of everything. The most hilarious and ridiculous things we but had to expect to happen. It would be a magical universe. It is not the universe we observe. So why does the universe follow our logic, if logic is only man-made?

A universe that would allow giant planet-carrying turtles would only seem illogical because we have created logic based on what we have seen prior.  The universe couldn't care less about what we think is logical or illogical.

No it would be illogical. It would not just seem to be.

so you believe your attempts to use reasoning to deduce facts about the universe, such as the shape of the earth, fail?
if you aren't going to be consistent, don't waste time.

No, that is not what I said at all.  I said:

This is the essential message: logic adjusts to what we observe, not the other way around as Jrowe would have you believe. 

When we have encountered something that does not conform to our logical notions, we have to discard the logical notions and adjust our paradigm.  This is precisely what happened when we discovered evolution, QM, General Relativity and pretty much every unexpected scientific development.

Please do not blame your inability to understand my position on me.

as for the rest of you, the conclusion is that technology could not lead to space travel because the ability to do so has not evolved, given that evolution has far better resources and far more time to develop capabilities than humans. look at that, yet another none of you ever ever acknowledged, let alone rebutted.

Evolution is unguided and random and relies on selective pressures. It has no target to reach for.

Technology is guided and aimed and also proceeds exponentially. Mankind has achieved more in technology in the last ten years than all of history combined.

Specifically:

the conclusion is that technology could not lead to space travel because the ability to do so has not evolved

This is plainly wrong and we have given you many examples of feats achieved by technology and not by evolution, but here are a few more just prove your conclusion is false:

Semi-conductors
Nuclear Fusion
Nuclear Fission
Inter-continental instant communication
Internet
Plastic
Synthetic elements
Lasers

All of these have been achieved by technology but not by evolution, so therefore your conclusion is wrong.

It is perfectly possible for technology to achieve more than evolution and therefore it is perfectly possible to use technology to reach space.

if we cannot use logic to describe the universe, why are any of you here? if logic does not work, none of your arguments make any sense either.

mathsman, i fail to see of what relevance that truth table is. i understand logic, it's rama who struggles with such principles.
if a implies not b, then if a is true, b cannot be true. probaility arguments don't even come close to a response, i can't believe you people are still relying on them. logic is watertight, probability is not. if you are saying it is completely impossible, on any world in any universe, for the so-called evidence of space travel to be faked, then give up on discussion because you are incapable of any thought. if you do want to hold that it must be impossible, give the reaosn. note, i am asking for a 100% watertight logical argument, not "but it's unlikely that..." because probability does not trump logic.
amazing that rama constantly asserts space travel is proven and has yet to give any evidence beyond "you know!"
you love your hyporcisy.

But your premise and conclusion are not logical.  The conclusion does not flow from your premise.  You fail to adequately explain why technology cannot achieve something evolution hasn't.

bj, READ THE FUCKING POST ALREADY. i have referred you to it several times. do you really think ignoring me yet again counts for anything? seriously, you seem incapable of actually acknowledging a word i say. it's pathetic.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63375.msg1683445
look at that, your bs about flight HAS ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH MULTIPLE FUCKING TIMES

I have read the entire thread.  You have not explained anything.  Other than asserting that you are right.  So I will continue asking what is fundamentally different between speed of flight and altitude that make supersonic flight possible eventhough evolution hasn't developed it yet?

as for the rest of you, the conclusion is that technology could not lead to space travel because the ability to do so has not evolved, given that evolution has far better resources and far more time to develop capabilities than humans. look at that, yet another none of you ever ever acknowledged, let alone rebutted.

And we have given you multiple examples of where technology has achieved things that evolution hasn't.  Such as supersonic flight, long range, nearly instantaneous communications.  I can phone someone who lives thousands of miles away.  Evolution hasn't produced that.  So all of these things indicate that your conclusion does not flow from your premise.

Evolution hasn't produced X, therefore X is impossible.  Is not true.  The conclusion is not connected to the premise at all.

Quote from: WallE on May 01, 2015, 08:13:28 AM

But a universe that allows giant planet-carrying turtles would not be logical. In such a universe we couldn't be sure of everything. The most hilarious and ridiculous things we but had to expect to happen. It would be a magical universe. It is not the universe we observe. So why does the universe follow our logic, if logic is only man-made?

The universe does not follow our logic. The universe is awash with counter-intuitive elements. Is the duality of light logical? The idea of an observor influencing the outcome of an experiment by the mere act of observation of that experiment - is that logical? What then, of objectivity? Of certainty?

Actually they are. I mean logical. These things transcend our traditional views on substance and reality, but not our logical categories.

Mainframes-Evolution is non-random.  Genetic variation is a random result of natural selection which is a process that favors the species which survive.