how evolution disproves space travel

  • 374 Replies
  • 54309 Views
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #330 on: May 01, 2015, 11:14:53 AM »
Mainframes-Evolution is non-random.  Genetic variation is a random result of natural selection which is a process that favors the species which survive.

Evolution is random in as far as there is no set plan. Yes, natural selection favours certain species but there is no aim to evolution. It simply favours those species that are most likely to survive and reproduce.

Technology is generally geared towards solving a specific problem or attaining a specific goal or achievement.

This was the point of difference I was trying to make.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #331 on: May 01, 2015, 11:28:54 AM »
If the universe is logical, what are its axioms and what are its rules of inference?

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #332 on: May 01, 2015, 11:44:46 AM »
If the universe is logical, what are its axioms and what are its rules of inference?

That's what people have been trying to figure out sense the dawn of civilization.  If I knew then I would have earned many Nobel prizes and would be known word wide as the smartest person in history.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

Mikey T.

  • 3383
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #333 on: May 01, 2015, 04:20:06 PM »
So since we are still arguing about logic and the universe, I assume that my reasoning earlier about technology being an evolutionary extension of the tool making and using trait is or is not agreed with. 
If so then evolution did in fact, through the use of technology, produce space fairing beings (humans).
If not then what is technology then.  If it is not an extension of abilities acquired due to evolutionary development, then what is it and why can't it surpass evolution anyway. 

Either way the premise and conclusions are still defeated.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #334 on: May 02, 2015, 08:55:11 AM »
Evidence trumps logic.  We have evidence, you don't.
if you need to bypass logic to use your evidence, it is not evidence: and i have plenty of evidence, you're just repeatedly ignoring it. pathetic, really.

Regardless, you have not shown that evolution absolutely constrains technology, so you are also making a probability argument: evolution probably constrains technological development.
false. read again.

The problem is that we have evidence that space travel has happened
debunked as a consequence. are you still struggling with this?
if it is impossible to go to space, then so-called space travel is faked. this is a fact. what is wrong with you?!

we have given you many examples of feats achieved by technology and not by evolution
look at that, ignoring the fact i've responded to each of those examples in turn before in this thread, and happily using refuted arguments to exhaust rather than discuss. learn to read.

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?
hello again bj. i linked you spefically to a post which directly rebuts your bs and you don't even acknowledge it. tell me, why shoudl i talk to you when you never read a word i say?

If the universe is logical, what are its axioms and what are its rules of inference?
uh, logic? you know logic is a set of axioms and rules of inference, right? are you kidding me?

still waiting for someone to address the premises with more than an asserted "you're wrong!" even if your bs examples (shredded time and time again) were right, that would imply a fault in my reasoning. yet again, an argument everyone has ignored to ramble on with straw men:
 given that evolution has far better resources and far more time to develop capabilities than humans
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 #335 on: May 02, 2015, 09:08:36 AM »
Jrowe, you say that just because evolution hasn't done something means it's not possible, but technology has done many things evolution has not like long distance radio comunication, supersonic flight, digging miles under the ground, split atoms, and many more things.  Show me an animal that can shoot lasers, there aren't any so that must mean that lakers are impossible.  Do you see how flawed your argument is?
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #336 on: May 02, 2015, 09:31:28 AM »
You have no evidence.  Show us where you have evidence?  You have not presented any in this thread.

You have also not shown why evolution constrains  technology.  You just assert that it does.  In rebuttal to those assertions, we presented many aspects of life where technology has surpassed evolution.  You just furiously waved your hands like you were swatting away a swarm of flies.  You have yet to explain why those aspects of life don't count towards your statement that technology can't do things evolution has not.

You linked me to a post by Mikey T Luvsballs.  Not one of yours so why should I respond to that?

Also, you support Dinosaur Boat Theory, I have shown in that thread that the dinosaurs traveled into space to get away from the Satanist Mammals.  Therefore, you support that space travel is possible. ;D

*

Mikey T.

  • 3383
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #337 on: May 02, 2015, 09:59:30 AM »
Ok that post he linked to, was me giving a list of some of the traits needed for space travel, which included examples of living things that actually have those traits.  Which was yet another way of showing his premise was flawed from the beginning.
Premise :  Evolution hasn't developed space travel. 
Conclusion:  Space travel is impossible.
  1).  All the traits needed for space travel have been produced by evolution.  (Even if we don't have space whales) Premise false, Conclusion either true or false.
  2).  Technology surpasses evolution. (Contested here by only one person, no logical reason why ever given and he claims no one else understands logic). Premise neither true or false, Conclusion either true or false
  3).  Technology is an evolutionary trait.  (Tool making and tool use are more basic forms of technology.  Never rebutted.) Premise false, Conclusion false.
  4).  Evolution has not needed to develop space travel yet.  (hiding more efficient than running to new environment, predators more easily develop chase than they do camouflage detection).  Premise neither true or false, Conclusion either true or false.

So for all the cases I just listed, that have been discussed, the premise has not provided the conclusion.  This means the logic is flawed.  A does not imply B, as shown above, A could imply B but B does not have a direct relationship to A in all cases.
Nature is analog, it doesn't have a yes or no 100% or 0%, there are infinite varying degrees.  Logic is primarily either yes or no. 

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #338 on: May 02, 2015, 11:47:38 AM »
Yes, so therefore, your post did not show the fundamental difference between supersonic flight and space flight that would allow evolution to achieve one but not the other given enough time.  Or why one might be possible , even though evolution hasn't developed either.  That is what I thought.

Therefore, since Jrowe, hasn't answered,

Why is supersonic flight achievable, even though evolution has not produced it, yet space flight is not, even though evolution has not produced that either?  Given that your argument is "Since evolution hasn't developed X, X is impossible" 

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #339 on: May 03, 2015, 12:42:18 PM »
apparently we've reached the point i can respond just by quoting myself. try to read this time.

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.

given that evolution has far better resources and far more time to develop capabilities than humans

just ignoring me isn't an answer. try to actually address my argument, your evasion's getting pathetic.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #340 on: May 03, 2015, 12:48:51 PM »
apparently we've reached the point i can respond just by quoting myself. try to read this time.

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.

given that evolution has far better resources and far more time to develop capabilities than humans

just ignoring me isn't an answer. try to actually address my argument, your evasion's getting pathetic.
Ok I will do that. Evolution isn't an intelligent design; it is a random mutation. Some survive better: they go on to reproduce. Now, think about it like a brute force program vs a person. The brute force program has a lot of power to crack passwords, but a person may guess the password "password" a lot faster. That is evolution vs humans. Also, animals can not go as high up because it is inefficient: it is cold so it takes a lot of energy, the air is thin and space is a vacuum therefore modern animals cannot survive. Even evolution can't really solve these survival proems.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #341 on: May 03, 2015, 12:52:16 PM »
apparently we've reached the point i can respond just by quoting myself. try to read this time.

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.

given that evolution has far better resources and far more time to develop capabilities than humans

just ignoring me isn't an answer. try to actually address my argument, your evasion's getting pathetic.
Ok I will do that. Evolution isn't an intelligent design; it is a random mutation. Some survive better: they go on to reproduce. Now, think about it like a brute force program vs a person. The brute force program has a lot of power to crack passwords, but a person may guess the password "password" a lot faster. That is evolution vs humans. Also, animals can not go as high up because it is inefficient: it is cold so it takes a lot of energy, the air is thin and space is a vacuum therefore modern animals cannot survive. Even evolution can't really solve these survival proems.

we've talked about capability and degree multiple times in this thread, don't leap in and act like you know everything when you've barely read it.

in addition, look at supposed spacecraft. rockets, which we have observed to evolve (in some aquatic species, for one). if they are useful means of travel, as nasa using them should imply, imagine them as an escape mechanism from land predators: simply shoot up, and avoid.
there are multiple benefits, even without getting onto wings (which you conveniently ignored).
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #342 on: May 03, 2015, 12:57:59 PM »
apparently we've reached the point i can respond just by quoting myself. try to read this time.

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.

given that evolution has far better resources and far more time to develop capabilities than humans

just ignoring me isn't an answer. try to actually address my argument, your evasion's getting pathetic.
Ok I will do that. Evolution isn't an intelligent design; it is a random mutation. Some survive better: they go on to reproduce. Now, think about it like a brute force program vs a person. The brute force program has a lot of power to crack passwords, but a person may guess the password "password" a lot faster. That is evolution vs humans. Also, animals can not go as high up because it is inefficient: it is cold so it takes a lot of energy, the air is thin and space is a vacuum therefore modern animals cannot survive. Even evolution can't really solve these survival proems.

we've talked about capability and degree multiple times in this thread, don't leap in and act like you know everything when you've barely read it.

in addition, look at supposed spacecraft. rockets, which we have observed to evolve (in some aquatic species, for one). if they are useful means of travel, as nasa using them should imply, imagine them as an escape mechanism from land predators: simply shoot up, and avoid.
there are multiple benefits, even without getting onto wings (which you conveniently ignored).
I answered your question directly as you asked. I ignored wings since they clearly cannot be used in space; they require air both for birds and planes.

I do not understand what you mean about spacecraft but I will attempt to answer. Spacecraft are not used in the animal kingdom because only humans have the ability to build one. We can observe rocket propulsion used in some plants to spread seeds. Animals have not evolved his ability as it requires a mechanism which they can not build, in addition stored energy in muscles is often enough to escape predators on land

Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #343 on: May 03, 2015, 04:08:55 PM »
apparently we've reached the point i can respond just by quoting myself. try to read this time.

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.

given that evolution has far better resources and far more time to develop capabilities than humans

just ignoring me isn't an answer. try to actually address my argument, your evasion's getting pathetic.

If what you suggest is true. what specific traits would be ramped up to allow supersonic speed? If you could specify these traits and how they are different from those that allow increased altitude, you may convince people.

Why do you think it is impossible to fly over a certain height?

I am specifically addressing your assertions, so you're welcome.
Remember, evolution has never produced an Oreo in nature, therefore heart surgery is impossible.

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #344 on: May 04, 2015, 05:50:44 AM »
apparently we've reached the point i can respond just by quoting myself. try to read this time.

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.

given that evolution has far better resources and far more time to develop capabilities than humans

just ignoring me isn't an answer. try to actually address my argument, your evasion's getting pathetic.
That doesn't explain at all why certain things have been achieved that surpass evolution yet space flight is unachievable.  In fact, your statement in bold is demonstratably false.  Why don't birds fly at supersonic speeds?  Given evolution has far better resources and far more time to develop supersonic flight than humans.

Just hand waving about degree versus capability isn't addressing this flaw in your argument.  So tell us, why is space travel not possible yet supersonic flight is?

?

LogicalKiller

  • 626
  • Atheist, Re'er and happy doctor of physics
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #345 on: May 04, 2015, 07:36:13 AM »
Haha, you still mess with this troll, oh my gosh. It's clear that he's trolling. His "belief" in FE, fairies, "evolution" of technic inventions... Come on guys, don't feed the troll.
"I hadn't known there are so many idiots on the world until I launched the Internet." ~ Stanisław Lem
personally i think fairies share a common ancestor with humans

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #346 on: May 04, 2015, 08:58:30 AM »
Haha, you still mess with this troll, oh my gosh. It's clear that he's trolling. His "belief" in FE, fairies, "evolution" of technic inventions... Come on guys, don't feed the troll.

You just can't stay away can you?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #347 on: May 04, 2015, 09:01:41 AM »
apparently we've reached the point i can respond just by quoting myself. try to read this time.

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.

given that evolution has far better resources and far more time to develop capabilities than humans

just ignoring me isn't an answer. try to actually address my argument, your evasion's getting pathetic.
Ok I will do that. Evolution isn't an intelligent design; it is a random mutation. Some survive better: they go on to reproduce. Now, think about it like a brute force program vs a person. The brute force program has a lot of power to crack passwords, but a person may guess the password "password" a lot faster. That is evolution vs humans. Also, animals can not go as high up because it is inefficient: it is cold so it takes a lot of energy, the air is thin and space is a vacuum therefore modern animals cannot survive. Even evolution can't really solve these survival proems.

we've talked about capability and degree multiple times in this thread, don't leap in and act like you know everything when you've barely read it.

in addition, look at supposed spacecraft. rockets, which we have observed to evolve (in some aquatic species, for one). if they are useful means of travel, as nasa using them should imply, imagine them as an escape mechanism from land predators: simply shoot up, and avoid.
there are multiple benefits, even without getting onto wings (which you conveniently ignored).

Yes, shooting up like that would help to avoid predictors even if the animal doesn't go to space.  No animals do that so clearly shooting up like a model rocket is impossible.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2015, 09:44:07 AM by mikeman7918 »
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11705
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #348 on: May 04, 2015, 09:25:08 AM »
Haha, you still mess with this troll, oh my gosh. It's clear that he's trolling. His "belief" in FE, fairies, "evolution" of technic inventions... Come on guys, don't feed the troll.

You just can't stay away can you?

Have to wonder why he comes back if he doesn't like feeding the trolls.
What else is there to do here?

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #349 on: May 04, 2015, 11:29:33 AM »
I ignored wings since they clearly cannot be used in space;
pay attention. we're talking about altitude. to reach space, you must ascend to a certain altitude: if you cannot reach that altitude, you cannot reach space. as the altitude is inaccessible...

That doesn't explain at all why certain things have been achieved that surpass evolution yet space flight is unachievable.  In fact, your statement in bold is demonstratably false.  Why don't birds fly at supersonic speeds?  Given evolution has far better resources and far more time to develop supersonic flight than humans.

so you yet again completely ignore and fail to even acknowledge my post? why do you come here if you're too stupid to read a word?

Yes, shooting up like that would help to avoid predictors even if the animal doesn't go to space.  No animals do that so clearly shooting up like a model rocket is impossible.
rocket systems exist in aquatic mammals, i can jump, and speed is always used to escape. vertical escape just isn't feasible.
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 #350 on: May 04, 2015, 09:33:48 PM »


That doesn't explain at all why certain things have been achieved that surpass evolution yet space flight is unachievable.  In fact, your statement in bold is demonstratably false.  Why don't birds fly at supersonic speeds?  Given evolution has far better resources and far more time to develop supersonic flight than humans.

so you yet again completely ignore and fail to even acknowledge my post? why do you come here if you're too stupid to read a word?

So quoting your post before I respond to the post isn't acknowledging it?
Should I type that I have acknowledged your post before I start typing?
Would that actually get you to respond to what is written in my posts instead of just asserting that I am wrong?  Would it get you to explain what you mean by degree versus capability?  If that is the case,

Jrowe, I acknowledge your post, no matter how wrong it is, I have acknowledged it.  It is still wrong, as you can see by my previous posts explaining why you are wrong.  However, I have acknowledged your post.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #351 on: May 06, 2015, 08:07:01 AM »


That doesn't explain at all why certain things have been achieved that surpass evolution yet space flight is unachievable.  In fact, your statement in bold is demonstratably false.  Why don't birds fly at supersonic speeds?  Given evolution has far better resources and far more time to develop supersonic flight than humans.

so you yet again completely ignore and fail to even acknowledge my post? why do you come here if you're too stupid to read a word?

So quoting your post before I respond to the post isn't acknowledging it?
Should I type that I have acknowledged your post before I start typing?
Would that actually get you to respond to what is written in my posts instead of just asserting that I am wrong?  Would it get you to explain what you mean by degree versus capability?  If that is the case,

Jrowe, I acknowledge your post, no matter how wrong it is, I have acknowledged it.  It is still wrong, as you can see by my previous posts explaining why you are wrong.  However, I have acknowledged your post.

hint: read the post. it answers your questions. it has done for quite a while now. if you aren't going to do anything except demand that i repeat myself and completely ignore me when i do, why should i waste any more time trying to educate you?
degree and capability have been defined and explained for ages now. you are being pathetic.
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 #352 on: May 06, 2015, 08:35:57 AM »


That doesn't explain at all why certain things have been achieved that surpass evolution yet space flight is unachievable.  In fact, your statement in bold is demonstratably false.  Why don't birds fly at supersonic speeds?  Given evolution has far better resources and far more time to develop supersonic flight than humans.

so you yet again completely ignore and fail to even acknowledge my post? why do you come here if you're too stupid to read a word?


So quoting your post before I respond to the post isn't acknowledging it?
Should I type that I have acknowledged your post before I start typing?
Would that actually get you to respond to what is written in my posts instead of just asserting that I am wrong?  Would it get you to explain what you mean by degree versus capability?  If that is the case,

Jrowe, I acknowledge your post, no matter how wrong it is, I have acknowledged it.  It is still wrong, as you can see by my previous posts explaining why you are wrong.  However, I have acknowledged your post.

hint: read the post. it answers your questions. it has done for quite a while now. if you aren't going to do anything except demand that i repeat myself and completely ignore me when i do, why should i waste any more time trying to educate you?
degree and capability have been defined and explained for ages now. you are being pathetic.
No, your posts do not answer any questions.  You have not explained why supersonic flight is achievable while space flight is not.  Other than a bunch of hand waving and assertions.

Yes, degree and capability have been defined for ages.  You are  applying their definition wrong.  You have not explained why supersonic flight is a matter of degree, or is it capability since you have changed your argument a few times, yet space flight is a matter of whatever the other one at the time happens to be.  You just assert that spaceflight is impossible. 

You say that supersonic flight is just a ramping up of traits while space flight the traits don't exist to ramp them up.

I asked for a list of traits that would be required for space travel.  You have not provided that list, instead Mikey T Lovsballs supplied a list of traits he believed were required for space travel, then also listed animals that had those traits.  Since you didn't respond to that, in fact, you linked to it for some reason, I can only assume that you agree with that list.  If so, then your argument of degree versus capability is shown to be invalid.  This is because those traits exist and could just be ramped up to allow space flight.

So since your original argument has shown to be false, there are plenty of technological achievements that evolution hasn't produced, and your degree versus capability argument has been shown to be false, read the previous paragraph, it is my conclusion, that you did not show that evolution disproved space travel.

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2443
  • Show me the evidence
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #353 on: May 06, 2015, 01:34:00 PM »
Supersonic flight, as with space travel required a technological jump to achieve. There is no way a propeller plane can beat the spead of sound in sustained horizontal flight. We needed a new technology to give as the capability to achieve faster than sound flight. I.e. a new capability unachievable with propellers. Birds are the same, they need a new method of propulsion to go faster than sound. They are physically limited by their current method of propulsion.
 No increase in performance with their current propulsion system will ever get them to the speeds aircraft are achieving. To compare propeller planes with jet planes is similar to comparing birds with rockets. Completely different methods of propulsion.

 It is not just an incremental improvement

You can in no way compare how a bird propels itself with the way a rocket or even jet propels itself. The entire physics is different.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #354 on: May 07, 2015, 06:37:32 AM »
i wonder how many times i'll need to repeat myself for anyone to actually acknowledge a word i say?
degree - ramping up one trait
capability - needing another trait.

yet again:

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.

space flight requires being able to ascend to higher altitudes, which does not happen. the end. the fact you're not even trying to address my points, only evading and asserting and ignoring basically everything about how logic works, is just proof of how desperate you are. wolf especally seems to have paid no attention whatsoever to the thread.
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 #355 on: May 07, 2015, 06:46:57 AM »
i wonder how many times i'll need to repeat myself for anyone to actually acknowledge a word i say?
degree - ramping up one trait
capability - needing another trait.

yet again:

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.

space flight requires being able to ascend to higher altitudes, which does not happen. the end. the fact you're not even trying to address my points, only evading and asserting and ignoring basically everything about how logic works, is just proof of how desperate you are. wolf especally seems to have paid no attention whatsoever to the thread.
what trait, specifically, do you suggest ramping up to improve flight? flight itself is the sum of multiple components and, faster than 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. [/size]

See how just changing one word in your argument, replacing speed with altitude, we show how wrong your argument is?  Why is it possible to fly faster than evolution has developed, but not possible to fly higher than evolution has developed?  Also, by your argument, commercial jets don't exist either.
COmmercial jets regularly fly at altitudes of over 35,000 feet, whereas the highest flying bird can only reach an altitude of around 21,000 feet.  By your argument, planes don't exist as it is impossible to go higher than the bird can.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #356 on: May 07, 2015, 06:51:19 AM »
i wonder how many times i'll need to repeat myself for anyone to actually acknowledge a word i say?
degree - ramping up one trait
capability - needing another trait.

yet again:

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.

space flight requires being able to ascend to higher altitudes, which does not happen. the end. the fact you're not even trying to address my points, only evading and asserting and ignoring basically everything about how logic works, is just proof of how desperate you are. wolf especally seems to have paid no attention whatsoever to the thread.
what trait, specifically, do you suggest ramping up to improve flight? flight itself is the sum of multiple components and, faster than 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. [/size]

See how just changing one word in your argument, replacing speed with altitude, we show how wrong your argument is?  Why is it possible to fly faster than evolution has developed, but not possible to fly higher than evolution has developed?  Also, by your argument, commercial jets don't exist either.
COmmercial jets regularly fly at altitudes of over 35,000 feet, whereas the highest flying bird can only reach an altitude of around 21,000 feet.  By your argument, planes don't exist as it is impossible to go higher than the bird can.

change the word and it doesn't make sense any more. lighter means faster, stronger means faster, streamlined means faster.
i'd love to hear how you have decided that no bird reaches those altitudes. do you keep tabs on every bird?
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 #357 on: May 07, 2015, 07:06:19 AM »
i'd love to hear how you have decided that no bird reaches those altitudes. do you keep tabs on every bird?

There is more evidence for space travel than there is for high altitude birds.  How would you like to proceed?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #358 on: May 07, 2015, 07:40:20 AM »
No animal has ever evolved to use hot air or light gass to pass through to fly like a hot air balloon.  That must mean that hot air balloons are impossible.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« Reply #359 on: May 07, 2015, 08:15:43 AM »
i wonder how many times i'll need to repeat myself for anyone to actually acknowledge a word i say?
degree - ramping up one trait
capability - needing another trait.

yet again:

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.

space flight requires being able to ascend to higher altitudes, which does not happen. the end. the fact you're not even trying to address my points, only evading and asserting and ignoring basically everything about how logic works, is just proof of how desperate you are. wolf especally seems to have paid no attention whatsoever to the thread.
what trait, specifically, do you suggest ramping up to improve flight? flight itself is the sum of multiple components and, faster than 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. [/size]

See how just changing one word in your argument, replacing speed with altitude, we show how wrong your argument is?  Why is it possible to fly faster than evolution has developed, but not possible to fly higher than evolution has developed?  Also, by your argument, commercial jets don't exist either.
COmmercial jets regularly fly at altitudes of over 35,000 feet, whereas the highest flying bird can only reach an altitude of around 21,000 feet.  By your argument, planes don't exist as it is impossible to go higher than the bird can.

change the word and it doesn't make sense any more. lighter means faster, stronger means faster, streamlined means faster.
i'd love to hear how you have decided that no bird reaches those altitudes. do you keep tabs on every bird?
No bird can reach certain heights because it is impossible FOR THEM. This is because the air is too thin for their wings to them to fly. However it is possible for humans to go to space because we have evolved to use tools to build things which got more complex until we made rockets