# Humans Are not made to travel into Space. Its a waste of Money.



## 52ndStreet

Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!


----------



## konradv

Years long missions could be carried out on ships with artificial gravity.


----------



## Montrovant

52ndStreet said:


> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!



Man does all kinds of things that humans were "not born" to do.  Flying, traveling underwater, hell, driving a car, all are things man was "not born" to do.


----------



## TNHarley

Studying space has progressed it. 
Turn off your computer, dumbo


----------



## 52ndStreet

konradv said:


> Years long missions could be carried out on ships with artificial gravity.



The Cosmic Gama ray radiation that any Mars three year mission Astronauts would be exposed to, if they make it to Mars or are able to lift off of Mars once they land, could kill them all.


----------



## WinterBorn

52ndStreet said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Years long missions could be carried out on ships with artificial gravity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Cosmic Gama ray radiation that any Mars three year mission Astronauts would be exposed to, if they make it to Mars or are able to lift off of Mars once they land, could kill them all.
Click to expand...


Driving down your street could kill you too.

If you look at the technology that is a direct result of the space program, you will see it has been well worth the money.

If you don't want to go to space, don't go.


----------



## martybegan

Montrovant said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man does all kinds of things that humans were "not born" to do.  Flying, traveling underwater, hell, driving a car, all are things man was "not born" to do.
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure we weren't meant to down a whole crave case of White Castles while stoned either....but it happens.....to a friend.....


----------



## Sunni Man

52ndStreet said:


> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings.


What scientific studies are your referring to??  ..


----------



## martybegan

TNHarley said:


> Studying space has progressed it.
> Turn off your computer, dumbo



Agreed. Space travel requires cutting edge technology via applied sciences and engineering, which expands technology throughout our world. 

Except for Astronaut ice-cream. That shit is gross.


----------



## WinterBorn

martybegan said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man does all kinds of things that humans were "not born" to do.  Flying, traveling underwater, hell, driving a car, all are things man was "not born" to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure we weren't meant to down a whole crave case of White Castles while stoned either....but it happens.....to a friend.....
Click to expand...


Good point.   In the south it is Krystals.    I have heard that some people eat a dozen when they are partaking of the devil's weed.    Just what I heard.


----------



## WinterBorn

martybegan said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Studying space has progressed it.
> Turn off your computer, dumbo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. Space travel requires cutting edge technology via applied sciences and engineering, which expands technology throughout our world.
> 
> Except for Astronaut ice-cream. That shit is gross.
Click to expand...


But there is Tang!


----------



## TNHarley

martybegan said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Studying space has progressed it.
> Turn off your computer, dumbo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. Space travel requires cutting edge technology via applied sciences and engineering, which expands technology throughout our world.
> 
> Except for Astronaut ice-cream. That shit is gross.
Click to expand...

I tried it at kennedys qhen i was a kid but i dont remember how it was.
Ill take your word for it lol


----------



## SandSquid

52ndStreet said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Years long missions could be carried out on ships with artificial gravity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Cosmic Gama ray radiation that any Mars three year mission Astronauts would be exposed to, if they make it to Mars or are able to lift off of Mars once they land, could kill them all.
Click to expand...


I've heard that traveling underwater can be hazardous for your health too since we don't have gills

And last I checked humans can survive at the altitude that planes fly either.

Based on humans own abilities we we're only created for speeds under 20mph and never leaving the ground.


----------



## WinterBorn

SandSquid said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Years long missions could be carried out on ships with artificial gravity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Cosmic Gama ray radiation that any Mars three year mission Astronauts would be exposed to, if they make it to Mars or are able to lift off of Mars once they land, could kill them all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've heard that traveling underwater can be hazardous for your health too since we don't have gills
> 
> And last I checked humans can survive at the altitude that planes fly either.
> 
> Based on humans own abilities we we're only created for speeds under 20mph and never leaving the ground.
Click to expand...


The "experts" said women should run marathons either.  Claimed their uterus could fall out.


----------



## SandSquid

Sunni Man said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings.
> 
> 
> 
> What scientific studies are your referring to??  ..
Click to expand...

The same ones that say since we don't have fun and gills we shouldn't be crossing the ocean and these "boat" things are a waste of money.


----------



## Montrovant

WinterBorn said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Years long missions could be carried out on ships with artificial gravity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Cosmic Gama ray radiation that any Mars three year mission Astronauts would be exposed to, if they make it to Mars or are able to lift off of Mars once they land, could kill them all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've heard that traveling underwater can be hazardous for your health too since we don't have gills
> 
> And last I checked humans can survive at the altitude that planes fly either.
> 
> Based on humans own abilities we we're only created for speeds under 20mph and never leaving the ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "experts" said women should run marathons either.  Claimed their uterus could fall out.
Click to expand...


The Myth of the Falling Uterus

Crazy that that is real.


----------



## petro

Humans are the first species on Earth with the capability to alter their environment including creating a habitable environment.

Unlike the the OP with their complete lack of vision, I argue that humans are perfectly designed to spread off world, adapt, and spread throughout  the stars as a spacefaring species ensuring the survival of a species that inhabits a planet with a finite life span.
The Earth and Sun will die in a distant future, no sense we follow that fate.


----------



## alang1216

52ndStreet said:


> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!


You're right about space not being good for humans you're wrong about everything else.  First, every penny of the space program is spent on earth, we don't send cash into space.  What we do well and need to focus on, is sending our machines, like the rovers, into space for us.  They are much more efficient at exploration.  When they can create habitats and ecosystems for us, only then should man go into space or to another planet or moon.


----------



## Crepitus

52ndStreet said:


> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!


Humans were not made to travel in the air or on the water either.  Neither were we designed to move faster than a very few miles per hour.

You some kinda Luddite?


----------



## SandSquid

Crepitus said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> Humans were not made to travel in the air or on the water either.  Neither were we designed to move faster than a very few miles per hour.
> 
> You some kinda Luddite?
Click to expand...


See what happens when you give the Amish a computer.. lol


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

52ndStreet said:


> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!


Centrifugal force can simulate gravity in space. The only way to completely end world hunger is by military action there are bad guys out there that use starvation as a means of control.


----------



## fncceo

WinterBorn said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Years long missions could be carried out on ships with artificial gravity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Cosmic Gama ray radiation that any Mars three year mission Astronauts would be exposed to, if they make it to Mars or are able to lift off of Mars once they land, could kill them all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've heard that traveling underwater can be hazardous for your health too since we don't have gills
> 
> And last I checked humans can survive at the altitude that planes fly either.
> 
> Based on humans own abilities we we're only created for speeds under 20mph and never leaving the ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "experts" said women should run marathons either.  Claimed their uterus could fall out.
Click to expand...


I've seen it happen.  A prolapsed uterus is not a pretty sight.


----------



## fncceo

Human beings evolved to live in a very specific set of environmental conditions.  Too much heat or cold, too little or too much gravity, too much or too little radiation and we sicken and die.  Space contains none of those things we need to survive and a contains a lot of things that could kill us anyway even if we have the other stuff.

All of these conditions can be replicated to provide a Habitrail environment in which humans can live, but we can't go anywhere without taking a bit of Planet Earth with us.  This doesn't let us stretch our legs very far before we must run back to our artificial enclosure.

Beings that settle on distant planets will have to be genetically altered to thrive in the vastly different conditions of even the most Earth-like of planets.  Once conditioned, going back home wouldn't be an option.


----------



## deanrd

Republicans are anti science.

Listen to them and we will be back living in caves.


----------



## fncceo

deanrd said:


> Republicans are anti science.
> 
> Listen to them and we will be back living in caves.



What's wrong with caves?  Some of them are actually quite nice...


----------



## Unkotare

Montrovant said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man does all kinds of things that humans were "not born" to do.  Flying, traveling underwater, hell, driving a car, all are things man was "not born" to do.
Click to expand...


Like reading,


----------



## SandSquid

fncceo said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans are anti science.
> 
> Listen to them and we will be back living in caves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with caves?  Some of them are actually quite nice...
Click to expand...


Yes it is nice how technology can make something which would be very difficult to survive in much better.  Instead of our lack of echolocation an reliance on sight making that place a death trap, human inventions make it bright and comfortable.


----------



## deanrd

fncceo said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans are anti science.
> 
> Listen to them and we will be back living in caves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with caves?  Some of them are actually quite nice...
Click to expand...

 Try living in one without heating, air-conditioning or electricity.


----------



## fncceo

deanrd said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans are anti science.
> 
> Listen to them and we will be back living in caves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with caves?  Some of them are actually quite nice...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try living in one without heating, air-conditioning or electricity.
Click to expand...


No thanks. I'm not a tree-hugging, hippie freak.


----------



## harmonica

it's not financially viable


----------



## WinterBorn

fncceo said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Years long missions could be carried out on ships with artificial gravity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Cosmic Gama ray radiation that any Mars three year mission Astronauts would be exposed to, if they make it to Mars or are able to lift off of Mars once they land, could kill them all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've heard that traveling underwater can be hazardous for your health too since we don't have gills
> 
> And last I checked humans can survive at the altitude that planes fly either.
> 
> Based on humans own abilities we we're only created for speeds under 20mph and never leaving the ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "experts" said women should run marathons either.  Claimed their uterus could fall out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen it happen.  A prolapsed uterus is not a pretty sight.
Click to expand...


I am sure it is not a pretty sight.   But running is not the cause.


----------



## Mindful

WinterBorn said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Years long missions could be carried out on ships with artificial gravity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Cosmic Gama ray radiation that any Mars three year mission Astronauts would be exposed to, if they make it to Mars or are able to lift off of Mars once they land, could kill them all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've heard that traveling underwater can be hazardous for your health too since we don't have gills
> 
> And last I checked humans can survive at the altitude that planes fly either.
> 
> Based on humans own abilities we we're only created for speeds under 20mph and never leaving the ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "experts" said women should run marathons either.  Claimed their uterus could fall out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen it happen.  A prolapsed uterus is not a pretty sight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure it is not a pretty sight.   But running is not the cause.
Click to expand...


It would take 80 years to get to another part of the Galaxy. We'd be dead by then.


----------



## WinterBorn

Mindful said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Cosmic Gama ray radiation that any Mars three year mission Astronauts would be exposed to, if they make it to Mars or are able to lift off of Mars once they land, could kill them all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard that traveling underwater can be hazardous for your health too since we don't have gills
> 
> And last I checked humans can survive at the altitude that planes fly either.
> 
> Based on humans own abilities we we're only created for speeds under 20mph and never leaving the ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "experts" said women should run marathons either.  Claimed their uterus could fall out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen it happen.  A prolapsed uterus is not a pretty sight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure it is not a pretty sight.   But running is not the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would take 80 years to get to another part of the Galaxy. We'd be dead by then.
Click to expand...


Yep.   At least the ones who left Earth would be.  The next generation would continue the trip.  And the next generation.   And the next.


----------



## ABikerSailor

52ndStreet said:


> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!



Hey stupid..................you DO realize that SpaceX and Virgin Galactic are both privately owned companies, right?  And, as a privately owned company, they can spend their money any way they wish.


----------



## ABikerSailor

SandSquid said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Years long missions could be carried out on ships with artificial gravity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Cosmic Gama ray radiation that any Mars three year mission Astronauts would be exposed to, if they make it to Mars or are able to lift off of Mars once they land, could kill them all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've heard that traveling underwater can be hazardous for your health too since we don't have gills
> 
> And last I checked humans can survive at the altitude that planes fly either.
> 
> Based on humans own abilities we we're only created for speeds under 20mph and never leaving the ground.
Click to expand...


Don't forget, we have a narrow temperature range that we can survive at, as well as have limitations on how high we can go.  Ever been to the top of Pike's Peak?  It's 14,110 ft. high, and at that altitude, it is impossible to light a cigarette with a Zippo lighter.  Not enough O2.  And, a person runs out of breath rather quickly at that altitude as well.  I know, I've been there.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Mindful said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Cosmic Gama ray radiation that any Mars three year mission Astronauts would be exposed to, if they make it to Mars or are able to lift off of Mars once they land, could kill them all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard that traveling underwater can be hazardous for your health too since we don't have gills
> 
> And last I checked humans can survive at the altitude that planes fly either.
> 
> Based on humans own abilities we we're only created for speeds under 20mph and never leaving the ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "experts" said women should run marathons either.  Claimed their uterus could fall out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen it happen.  A prolapsed uterus is not a pretty sight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure it is not a pretty sight.   But running is not the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would take 80 years to get to another part of the Galaxy. We'd be dead by then.
Click to expand...


80 years with our current technology, won't even get you out of the Oort Cloud.

If you wanted to get to another star in our galaxy, the closest one is Proxima Centari, and that is about 4.2 light years away.  (For those who don't know, a light year is how far light travels in one year, and light travels at 186,000 miles per SECOND.)


----------



## Mindful

WinterBorn said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard that traveling underwater can be hazardous for your health too since we don't have gills
> 
> And last I checked humans can survive at the altitude that planes fly either.
> 
> Based on humans own abilities we we're only created for speeds under 20mph and never leaving the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "experts" said women should run marathons either.  Claimed their uterus could fall out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen it happen.  A prolapsed uterus is not a pretty sight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure it is not a pretty sight.   But running is not the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would take 80 years to get to another part of the Galaxy. We'd be dead by then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.   At least the ones who left Earth would be.  The next generation would continue the trip.  And the next generation.   And the next.
Click to expand...


Like Monarch butterflies?

Or we could transfer our minds into robots, and travel forever.


----------



## Mindful

Scientists believe there are at least 100 billion galaxies in the Universe, with each galaxy having 30 billion planets. Notice I said "billion" in those numbers. Those numbers are too big for me to comprehend.


----------



## 52ndStreet

A mission to Mars some scientist say would be a "Suicide Mission" to many things could go wrong. It would take three years to reach a very cold dead planet. Its  an absurdity to even suggest such a expensive and wasteful
mission.!Spend the money here on Earth where its needed.!


----------



## james bond

I think humans can travel in space and live in space stations as has been demonstrated, i.e. they can overcome gravity and G forces, but humans may not be multiplanetary.  They have to find a planet that is habitable like Earth and the chances of living on another planet so far has been slim and none.  Humans will not be able to colonize planets that do not have a protective magnetic field to protect them from the solar wind.  Then the atmospheric gases may not be right or there isn't enough water.  NASA wants to send humans to Mars to show there is life there or evidence of past life.  This means that evolution worked on other planets which is ridiculous in that there is no evidence for abiogenesis.  A mission to Mars could be dangerous due to a crash landing, there isn't enough fuel to get back or they find the atmosphere is too harsh for humans to live there.


----------



## gulfman

52ndStreet said:


> A mission to Mars some scientist say would be a "Suicide Mission" to many things could go wrong. It would take three years to reach a very cold dead planet. Its  an absurdity to even suggest such a expensive and wasteful
> mission.!Spend the money here on Earth where its needed.!


People on food stamps and welfare take up too much "space" now


----------



## Montrovant

james bond said:


> I think humans can travel in space and live in space stations as has been demonstrated, i.e. they can overcome gravity and G forces, but humans may not be multiplanetary.  They have to find a planet that is habitable like Earth and the chances of living on another planet so far has been slim and none.  Humans will not be able to colonize planets that do not have a protective magnetic field to protect them from the solar wind.  Then the atmospheric gases may not be right or there isn't enough water.  NASA wants to send humans to Mars to show there is life there or evidence of past life.  This means that evolution worked on other planets which is ridiculous in that there is no evidence for abiogenesis.  A mission to Mars could be dangerous due to a crash landing, there isn't enough fuel to get back or they find the atmosphere is too harsh for humans to live there.



NASA wants to send humans to Mars to prove abiogenesis?  Where do you get that idea from?


----------



## BuckToothMoron

52ndStreet said:


> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!



First, spaceEx is a private corporation. Private corporations are in business. Their mission is not solving world hunger. 

Second, space exploration is not just about humans traveling thru space. Without the technological advancements brought from space travel your life would be vastly different. 

My advice- find a new cause, because this one is stupid and uninformed.

What would happen if all satellites stopped working?


----------



## james bond

Montrovant said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think humans can travel in space and live in space stations as has been demonstrated, i.e. they can overcome gravity and G forces, but humans may not be multiplanetary.  They have to find a planet that is habitable like Earth and the chances of living on another planet so far has been slim and none.  Humans will not be able to colonize planets that do not have a protective magnetic field to protect them from the solar wind.  Then the atmospheric gases may not be right or there isn't enough water.  NASA wants to send humans to Mars to show there is life there or evidence of past life.  This means that evolution worked on other planets which is ridiculous in that there is no evidence for abiogenesis.  A mission to Mars could be dangerous due to a crash landing, there isn't enough fuel to get back or they find the atmosphere is too harsh for humans to live there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NASA wants to send humans to Mars to prove abiogenesis?  Where do you get that idea from?
Click to expand...


You cannot read oh fuzzy one.  What did I actually write ?

Maybe you can practice your reading comprehension here.

NASA's Journey to Mars


----------



## BuckToothMoron

petro said:


> Humans are the first species on Earth with the capability to alter their environment including creating a habitable environment.
> 
> Unlike the the OP with their complete lack of vision, I argue that humans are perfectly designed to spread off world, adapt, and spread throughout  the stars as a spacefaring species ensuring the survival of a species that inhabits a planet with a finite life span.
> The Earth and Sun will die in a distant future, no sense we follow that fate.



Actually beavers alter their environment too, but I get you point.


----------



## Montrovant

james bond said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think humans can travel in space and live in space stations as has been demonstrated, i.e. they can overcome gravity and G forces, but humans may not be multiplanetary.  They have to find a planet that is habitable like Earth and the chances of living on another planet so far has been slim and none.  Humans will not be able to colonize planets that do not have a protective magnetic field to protect them from the solar wind.  Then the atmospheric gases may not be right or there isn't enough water.  NASA wants to send humans to Mars to show there is life there or evidence of past life.  This means that evolution worked on other planets which is ridiculous in that there is no evidence for abiogenesis.  A mission to Mars could be dangerous due to a crash landing, there isn't enough fuel to get back or they find the atmosphere is too harsh for humans to live there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NASA wants to send humans to Mars to prove abiogenesis?  Where do you get that idea from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot read oh fuzzy one.  What did I actually write ?
> 
> Maybe you can practice your reading comprehension here.
> 
> NASA's Journey to Mars
Click to expand...


You wrote this: "NASA wants to send humans to Mars to show there is life there or evidence of past life. This means that evolution worked on other planets which is ridiculous in that there is no evidence for abiogenesis."

Sure sounds as if you're trying to say NASA wants to find evidence of life on Mars to prove abiogenesis by sending humans.  But hey, maybe when you say NASA wants to find evidence of life and indicate that would only be true if evolution, and therefore abiogenesis, were true, you mean something totally different.


----------



## justoffal

52ndStreet said:


> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!



News Flash ...
The Earth has a date with a red giant.
Ain't gonna be much left after the date.
Man had better get busy figuring out what's next because his lease here is not going to be renewed.

Jo


----------



## Yarddog

52ndStreet said:


> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!





Thinking about it, space travel needs to be done more incrementally. Probably we are trying to go to far too soon.
I think the best course would be to slowly transport modular equipment up to the moon. Things that can be assembled relatively easily. begin tunneling and building an underground moon base that would shield people from solar radiation and space junk and they would at least have some gravity. probably near on of the poles where there is water which can be converted to fuel. over time we might be able to put together another space craft on the moon with heavier construction because it would be taking off from lighter gravity ( about 1/6 of earth). 
This would most likely take a lot of time and patience to start up a solid building block inside the solar system to launch from. Dont know if anyone has enough of that these days


----------



## Yarddog

WinterBorn said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Studying space has progressed it.
> Turn off your computer, dumbo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. Space travel requires cutting edge technology via applied sciences and engineering, which expands technology throughout our world.
> 
> Except for Astronaut ice-cream. That shit is gross.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But there is Tang!
Click to expand...


CAT scans, camera phones,  the jaws of life, athletic shoes, wireless technology... etc.. I think even duct tape


----------



## 52ndStreet

Like I said, any space mission that's going to take three of more years, is a suicide mission.!.When we can master some kind of near death deep coma sleep, where the astronauts can go to sleep for three years and then be reawaken, if they can be all reawaken , maybe then. But then that becomes a suicide mission in and of itself.!!? Who would  want to go on such a mission?, knowing that it is a suicide mission!?


----------



## Unkotare

52ndStreet said:


> Like I said, any space mission that's going to take three of more years, is a suicide mission.!.When we can master some kind of near death deep coma sleep, where the astronauts can go to sleep for three years and then be reawaken, if they can be all reawaken , maybe then. But then that becomes a suicide mission in and of itself.!!? Who would  want to go on such a mission?, knowing that it is a suicide mission!?





YOU should really give it some consideration.


----------



## Wyatt earp

52ndStreet said:


> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!



huh?

Nasa budget 20 Billion Dollars

Budget of NASA - Wikipedia

Welfare Budget 732 Billion dollars

Welfare Budget


adding 20 billion dollars to welfare is not going to do a damn thing.


----------



## Montrovant

52ndStreet said:


> Like I said, any space mission that's going to take three of more years, is a suicide mission.!.When we can master some kind of near death deep coma sleep, where the astronauts can go to sleep for three years and then be reawaken, if they can be all reawaken , maybe then. But then that becomes a suicide mission in and of itself.!!? Who would  want to go on such a mission?, knowing that it is a suicide mission!?



What is it you think is going to happen to make multi-year space travel a suicide mission if the astronauts are awake, but not if they are asleep?


----------



## AveryJarhman

Space exploration has created many industries and untold numbers of jobs not related to space.






https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/...emming-from-Space-Exploration-2013-TAGGED.pdf


----------



## Flopper

52ndStreet said:


> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!


I think much the same thing could have been said about crossing the Atlantic in small ships 400 years ago. 25% to 40% of those crossing the Atlantic in the 1600's became gravely ill and half of them died.  So I guess they should have stayed home rather than settling the new world.


----------



## Flopper

52ndStreet said:


> Like I said, any space mission that's going to take three of more years, is a suicide mission.!.When we can master some kind of near death deep coma sleep, where the astronauts can go to sleep for three years and then be reawaken, if they can be all reawaken , maybe then. But then that becomes a suicide mission in and of itself.!!? Who would  want to go on such a mission?, knowing that it is a suicide mission!?


The trip you're speaking of is to Mars.  It's a one way trip it and probably will not happen for about 20 more years.  By then a lot of problems will be solved.

IMHO, now is the time for space research and development, not human exploration.  Just to explore the solar system we need a much better propulsion system.  To explore the universe we will need some type of propulsion that will approach the speed of light.  And that is in the realm science fiction these days.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

52ndStreet said:


> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!



Yeah!? Then explain Star Trek


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

52ndStreet said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Years long missions could be carried out on ships with artificial gravity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Cosmic Gama ray radiation that any Mars three year mission Astronauts would be exposed to, if they make it to Mars or are able to lift off of Mars once they land, could kill them all.
Click to expand...


Or give them super powers


----------



## denmark

52ndStreet said:


> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!


I agree to a point, but the technology that is behind the space travel is valuable for down-to-earth applications too, like the communication systems that link all nations in a second.
Basic science research often results in engineering progress benefitting many people.

However, various priorities and possible solutions need to be compared for overall maximum benefit.


----------



## Montrovant

Flopper said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, any space mission that's going to take three of more years, is a suicide mission.!.When we can master some kind of near death deep coma sleep, where the astronauts can go to sleep for three years and then be reawaken, if they can be all reawaken , maybe then. But then that becomes a suicide mission in and of itself.!!? Who would  want to go on such a mission?, knowing that it is a suicide mission!?
> 
> 
> 
> The trip you're speaking of is to Mars.  It's a one way trip it and probably will not happen for about 20 more years.  By then a lot of problems will be solved.
> 
> IMHO, now is the time for space research and development, not human exploration.  Just to explore the solar system we need a much better propulsion system.  To explore the universe we will need some type of propulsion that will approach the speed of light.  And that is in the realm science fiction these days.
Click to expand...


We'll need something that far exceeds the speed of light to really explore the universe.


----------



## Likkmee

52ndStreet said:


> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!


AGREED. Fucking idiots can't even " conquer" athletes foot. The closest you can come is by doing the same thing you do to suit and ties. PISS ON 'EM !


----------



## sealybobo

52ndStreet said:


> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!


Eventually this earth will die. Shouldn’t humans try to outlive it?


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, any space mission that's going to take three of more years, is a suicide mission.!.When we can master some kind of near death deep coma sleep, where the astronauts can go to sleep for three years and then be reawaken, if they can be all reawaken , maybe then. But then that becomes a suicide mission in and of itself.!!? Who would  want to go on such a mission?, knowing that it is a suicide mission!?
> 
> 
> 
> The trip you're speaking of is to Mars.  It's a one way trip it and probably will not happen for about 20 more years.  By then a lot of problems will be solved.
> 
> IMHO, now is the time for space research and development, not human exploration.  Just to explore the solar system we need a much better propulsion system.  To explore the universe we will need some type of propulsion that will approach the speed of light.  And that is in the realm science fiction these days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll need something that far exceeds the speed of light to really explore the universe.
Click to expand...


You would need something that exceeds the speed of light so you can explore the universe but we don’t as a species. It could take multiple generations on a small moon size spaceship.

There is a planet that might be habitable but the gravity is twice that of earth. The people who made it would evolve and adapt and get used to it.

Kepler 452b’s atmosphere is thicker and probably more like Venus.

Oh well, 1 down 100 trillion more potential planets.

Or a moon. Exo moons might be where we have to live.

Kepler 1625. This planet might have a habitable exomoon. They are hard to see. So we are looking at places that might have life and we just don’t know. It’s not that we have looked and seen and don’t see life. We look and can’t see if there is life because we can’t see that far. Difference.


----------



## Wyatt earp

sealybobo said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> Eventually this earth will die. Shouldn’t humans try to outlive it?
Click to expand...



Every Star will die in the Universe, No?


----------



## Flopper

bear513 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> Eventually this earth will die. Shouldn’t humans try to outlive it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Every Star will die in the Universe, No?
Click to expand...

Until the universe comes to an end


----------



## fncceo

sealybobo said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> Eventually this earth will die. Shouldn’t humans try to outlive it?
Click to expand...


Picture what 'humans' looked like five million years ago.

Now, picture what they will look like in five BILLION years.

Those who outlive our star will bear us precious little resemblance.


----------



## Flopper

fncceo said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> Eventually this earth will die. Shouldn’t humans try to outlive it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Picture what 'humans' looked like five million years ago.
> 
> Now, picture what they will look like in five BILLION years.
> 
> Those who outlive our star will bear us precious little resemblance.
Click to expand...

With the advancements in genetic engineering, humans will look the way they want to look.


----------



## there4eyeM

Current technology does not justify extensive human space travel. It is too dangerous and much too expensive. 
But, then again, so is U.S. foreign policy.


----------



## Kilroy2

52ndStreet said:


> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!



Interesting question

Lets look at it from how many people have died since man learned to fly

57,810 people using 50 deaths per incident as the cut off point in the past 100 years

So it really is much higher with one to a few people as a pilot and maybe a few passengers

with the recently airplane crashes still going on in 2019 because of technology

Lets fly the plane automatically, can' trust human control of the plane

So How many will die in space flight  ?

Probably more than the actual number of astronauts.

The movie 1st Passenger was interesting didn't like the ending, they should have had some offspring that survived

Still the point is Man can only do so much before it is to much, so I do buy into solving hunger first


----------



## sealybobo

bear513 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> Eventually this earth will die. Shouldn’t humans try to outlive it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Every Star will die in the Universe, No?
Click to expand...

Yea but if a meteor wipes out this planet wouldn’t it be nice if we settled on another planet? Or a few other planets?


----------



## petro

sealybobo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> Eventually this earth will die. Shouldn’t humans try to outlive it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Every Star will die in the Universe, No?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea but if a meteor wipes out this planet wouldn’t it be nice if we settled on another planet? Or a few other planets?
Click to expand...

Or the ability to meet it and possibly alter its course.
Hell, even mine the sucker.
The US Geological Survey Is Getting Serious About Space Resources and Mining


----------



## sealybobo

fncceo said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> Eventually this earth will die. Shouldn’t humans try to outlive it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Picture what 'humans' looked like five million years ago.
> 
> Now, picture what they will look like in five BILLION years.
> 
> Those who outlive our star will bear us precious little resemblance.
Click to expand...

This is why I think it’s funny my parents want us to marry greeks or white Americans want America to stay white. Who cares what color my/our ancestors look like 1 million years from now? All I care is that they are happy and healthy


----------



## fncceo

sealybobo said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> Eventually this earth will die. Shouldn’t humans try to outlive it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Picture what 'humans' looked like five million years ago.
> 
> Now, picture what they will look like in five BILLION years.
> 
> Those who outlive our star will bear us precious little resemblance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is why I think it’s funny my parents want us to marry greeks or white Americans want America to stay white. Who cares what color my/our ancestors look like 1 million years from now? All I care is that they are happy and healthy
Click to expand...


I'm betting on this ...


----------



## sealybobo

fncceo said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> Eventually this earth will die. Shouldn’t humans try to outlive it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Picture what 'humans' looked like five million years ago.
> 
> Now, picture what they will look like in five BILLION years.
> 
> Those who outlive our star will bear us precious little resemblance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is why I think it’s funny my parents want us to marry greeks or white Americans want America to stay white. Who cares what color my/our ancestors look like 1 million years from now? All I care is that they are happy and healthy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm betting on this ...
Click to expand...

I watched a great show about how many places might harbor life or might have once harbored life. Mars has the ingredients and once had water. Once we conclude life happens wherever the conditions are right that adds to the probability we aren’t alone.

Are they as smart as us? Some will be and some won’t be any smarter than dinosaurs.

My guess is there’s lots of life out there but intelligent life is rare. All the conditions have to be right.

But I also believe life once existed on Mars. Not intelligent life but life


----------



## Blues Man

konradv said:


> Years long missions could be carried out on ships with artificial gravity.



Or with a spinning ring


----------



## boedicca

52ndStreet said:


> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!




This is one reason why there is a push to understand DNA and enable genetic engineering.


----------



## Flopper

there4eyeM said:


> Current technology does not justify extensive human space travel. It is too dangerous and much too expensive.
> But, then again, so is U.S. foreign policy.


There're several good reasons why manned missions are neither necessary are practical.  First being unmanned missions can accomplish most of what a man mission can do and in some cases a lot better.  The second reason is cost.  Any maned mission is designed with more backups and better quality control. That adds significantly to the cost.

There are equally good reason for manned mission.  Only a manned mission can colonized planets and moons building a human community.  No matter how smart we think computers and AI systems are, they fall short in dealing with totally unexpected events, maybe someday but not today.  Lastly manned missions create a huge interest in space travel. Send a probe to Mars and it gets 30 seconds on the evening new.  Send a manned space craft and it becomes a historic even that inspires dreams that careers and businesses are built on.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Well, it seems that Trump is pushing through his Space Force.

Even though there are a lot of people who say that it is unnecessary.


----------



## anynameyouwish

52ndStreet said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Years long missions could be carried out on ships with artificial gravity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Cosmic Gama ray radiation that any Mars three year mission Astronauts would be exposed to, if they make it to Mars or are able to lift off of Mars once they land, could kill them all.
Click to expand...


but we will develop better technology and some day these problems won't be problems.


----------



## anynameyouwish

Sunni Man said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings.
> 
> 
> 
> What scientific studies are your referring to??  ..
Click to expand...



the bible


----------



## ABikerSailor

anynameyouwish said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings.
> 
> 
> 
> What scientific studies are your referring to??  ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the bible
Click to expand...


So....................you think it's because the Bible says that we shouldn't go into space, that is why humans can't?  Hate to tell you, but in the Bible it says that mankind was created in His image.  If God, Jesus, and Elijah were all taken up into heaven, and it isn't some place on this earth, then that means that God is a space traveler.  If we are made in His image, wouldn't it be logical to presume that we would eventually become space travelers as well?


----------



## anynameyouwish

ABikerSailor said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings.
> 
> 
> 
> What scientific studies are your referring to??  ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the bible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So....................you think it's because the Bible says that we shouldn't go into space, that is why humans can't?  Hate to tell you, but in the Bible it says that mankind was created in His image.  If God, Jesus, and Elijah were all taken up into heaven, and it isn't some place on this earth, then that means that God is a space traveler.  If we are made in His image, wouldn't it be logical to presume that we would eventually become space travelers as well?
Click to expand...



I was making a jest.

I'm an atheist.

I support adventuring into space.


----------



## fncceo

ABikerSailor said:


> Well, it seems that Trump is pushing through his Space Force.
> 
> Even though there are a lot of people who say that it is unnecessary.



Space Force was founded 1987 by then President Reagan.


----------



## ABikerSailor

fncceo said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it seems that Trump is pushing through his Space Force.
> 
> Even though there are a lot of people who say that it is unnecessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Space Force was founded 1987 by then President Reagan.
Click to expand...


No, it was a defensive satellite system called the Strategic Defense Initiative, which was nicknamed "star wars", that Reagan wanted.   And, it was discontinued in 1993.  By the way, it wasn't founded in 1987, Reagan first mentioned it in 1983.

Strategic Defense Initiative - Wikipedia

*The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was a proposed missile defense system intended to protect the United States from attack by ballistic strategic nuclear weapons (intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched ballistic missiles). The concept was first announced publicly by President Ronald Reagan on 23 March 1983.[1] Reagan was a vocal critic of the doctrine of mutual assured destruction (MAD), which he described as a "suicide pact", and he called upon the scientists and engineers of the United States to develop a system that would render nuclear weapons obsolete. 

The Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO) was set up in 1984 within the United States Department of Defense to oversee development. A wide array of advanced weapon concepts, including lasers,[2][3] particle beam weapons and ground- and space-based missile systems were studied, along with various sensor, command and control, and high-performance computer systems that would be needed to control a system consisting of hundreds of combat centers and satellites spanning the entire globe. A number of these concepts were tested through the late 1980s, and follow-on efforts and spin-offs continue to this day. 

Under the SDIO's Innovative Sciences and Technology Office,[4][5][6] headed by physicist and engineer Dr. James Ionson,[7][8][9][10] the investment was predominantly made in basic research at national laboratories, universities, and in industry; these programs have continued to be key sources of funding for top research scientists in the fields of high-energy physics, supercomputing/computation, advanced materials, and many other critical science and engineering disciplines — funding which indirectly supports other research work by top scientists, and which would be politically impossible to fund outside of the defense budget environment. 

In 1987, the American Physical Society concluded that the technologies being considered were decades away from being ready for use, and at least another decade of research was required to know whether such a system was even possible.[11] After the publication of the APS report, SDIs budget was repeatedly cut. By the late 1980s, the effort had been re-focused on the "Brilliant Pebbles" concept using small orbiting missiles not unlike a conventional air-to-air missile, which was expected to be much less expensive to develop and deploy. 

SDI was controversial throughout its history, and was criticized for threatening to destabilize the MAD-approach and to possibly re-ignite "an offensive arms race".[12] SDI was derisively nicknamed by Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy as "Star Wars", after the 1977 film by George Lucas. By the early 1990s, with the Cold War ending and nuclear arsenals being rapidly reduced, political support for SDI collapsed. SDI officially ended in 1993, when the administration of President Bill Clinton redirected the efforts towards theatre ballistic missiles and renamed the agency the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO). BMDO was renamed the Missile Defense Agency in 2002. 
*


----------



## Darkwind

52ndStreet said:


> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!


No.

In truth, the only way we will ever be able to save this planet we live on is by moving out into space.


----------



## Darkwind

Montrovant said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man does all kinds of things that humans were "not born" to do.  Flying, traveling underwater, hell, driving a car, all are things man was "not born" to do.
Click to expand...

Some, the most bravest of men, even sleep with Nancy Pelosi.  We need to erect a monument to his sacrifice.


----------



## fncceo

ABikerSailor said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it seems that Trump is pushing through his Space Force.
> 
> Even though there are a lot of people who say that it is unnecessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Space Force was founded 1987 by then President Reagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it was a defensive satellite system called the Strategic Defense Initiative, which was nicknamed "star wars", that Reagan wanted.   And, it was discontinued in 1993.  By the way, it wasn't founded in 1987, Reagan first mentioned it in 1983.
> 
> Strategic Defense Initiative - Wikipedia
> 
> *The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was a proposed missile defense system intended to protect the United States from attack by ballistic strategic nuclear weapons (intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched ballistic missiles). The concept was first announced publicly by President Ronald Reagan on 23 March 1983.[1] Reagan was a vocal critic of the doctrine of mutual assured destruction (MAD), which he described as a "suicide pact", and he called upon the scientists and engineers of the United States to develop a system that would render nuclear weapons obsolete.
> 
> The Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO) was set up in 1984 within the United States Department of Defense to oversee development. A wide array of advanced weapon concepts, including lasers,[2][3] particle beam weapons and ground- and space-based missile systems were studied, along with various sensor, command and control, and high-performance computer systems that would be needed to control a system consisting of hundreds of combat centers and satellites spanning the entire globe. A number of these concepts were tested through the late 1980s, and follow-on efforts and spin-offs continue to this day.
> 
> Under the SDIO's Innovative Sciences and Technology Office,[4][5][6] headed by physicist and engineer Dr. James Ionson,[7][8][9][10] the investment was predominantly made in basic research at national laboratories, universities, and in industry; these programs have continued to be key sources of funding for top research scientists in the fields of high-energy physics, supercomputing/computation, advanced materials, and many other critical science and engineering disciplines — funding which indirectly supports other research work by top scientists, and which would be politically impossible to fund outside of the defense budget environment.
> 
> In 1987, the American Physical Society concluded that the technologies being considered were decades away from being ready for use, and at least another decade of research was required to know whether such a system was even possible.[11] After the publication of the APS report, SDIs budget was repeatedly cut. By the late 1980s, the effort had been re-focused on the "Brilliant Pebbles" concept using small orbiting missiles not unlike a conventional air-to-air missile, which was expected to be much less expensive to develop and deploy.
> 
> SDI was controversial throughout its history, and was criticized for threatening to destabilize the MAD-approach and to possibly re-ignite "an offensive arms race".[12] SDI was derisively nicknamed by Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy as "Star Wars", after the 1977 film by George Lucas. By the early 1990s, with the Cold War ending and nuclear arsenals being rapidly reduced, political support for SDI collapsed. SDI officially ended in 1993, when the administration of President Bill Clinton redirected the efforts towards theatre ballistic missiles and renamed the agency the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO). BMDO was renamed the Missile Defense Agency in 2002. *
Click to expand...


United States Space Command - Wikipedia


----------



## fncceo

Darkwind said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> In truth, the only way we will ever be able to save this planet we live on is by moving out into space.
Click to expand...


Bollocks!

The Earth doesn't even notice our presence.

It was here billions of years without us and will be here billions of years after we're gone.

In the grander scheme of things, you're not as important as you might imagine.


----------



## Deno

52ndStreet said:


> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!




If man was meant to fly we would have wings...……...


----------



## Flopper

ABikerSailor said:


> Well, it seems that Trump is pushing through his Space Force.
> 
> Even though there are a lot of people who say that it is unnecessary.


He's got get those aliens out the country.


----------



## Flopper

fncceo said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> In truth, the only way we will ever be able to save this planet we live on is by moving out into space.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bollocks!
> 
> The Earth doesn't even notice our presence.
> 
> It was here billions of years without us and will be here billions of years after we're gone.
> 
> In the grander scheme of things, you're not as important as you might imagine.
Click to expand...

Of course it will be here.  Man may not.


----------



## fncceo

52ndStreet said:


> Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!



Space-X launches are fine ... what people do with their own money is their own concern.  They can send all the private expeditions to Mars they want.

But, tax dollars for space travel, not so much.


----------



## there4eyeM

fncceo said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> In truth, the only way we will ever be able to save this planet we live on is by moving out into space.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bollocks!
> 
> The Earth doesn't even notice our presence.
> 
> It was here billions of years without us and will be here billions of years after we're gone.
> 
> In the grander scheme of things, you're not as important as you might imagine.
Click to expand...

"Important" _is_ imagination.


----------



## The Purge

Traveling in space looks like all kinds of fun, and in a lot of respects, it is—provided you can overlook a few downsides. There’s the loss of muscle mass, for one thing. Then there’s the decalcification of bones and the stress on the heart and the damage to the eyes and the changes in the immune system and the disruption of the genome and an actual shortening of your overall life expectancy.

It was, in part, to study all of those biological problems that astronaut Scott Kelly spent 340 days in space from 2015 to 2016 (chronicled in TIME’s Emmy-nominated series _A Year in Space_). Now, just over three years after his return, the first tranche of studies into Kelly’s off-world marathon has been published in _Science_. The results are mixed — Kelly fared better than expected on some measures and worse on others. The overall conclusion is less ambiguous: space travel is exceedingly hard on the human body, and we have a lot to learn before we’re ready to start living on the moon or Mars.

(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...


----------



## Flopper

The Purge said:


> Traveling in space looks like all kinds of fun, and in a lot of respects, it is—provided you can overlook a few downsides. There’s the loss of muscle mass, for one thing. Then there’s the decalcification of bones and the stress on the heart and the damage to the eyes and the changes in the immune system and the disruption of the genome and an actual shortening of your overall life expectancy.
> 
> It was, in part, to study all of those biological problems that astronaut Scott Kelly spent 340 days in space from 2015 to 2016 (chronicled in TIME’s Emmy-nominated series _A Year in Space_). Now, just over three years after his return, the first tranche of studies into Kelly’s off-world marathon has been published in _Science_. The results are mixed — Kelly fared better than expected on some measures and worse on others. The overall conclusion is less ambiguous: space travel is exceedingly hard on the human body, and we have a lot to learn before we’re ready to start living on the moon or Mars.
> (Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...


*Yes it may be hard on the human body but that is not a reason not to do it.* *There is nothing easy about space travel but the more we work at it the more problems we can overcome.


“We choose to go the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills.”
John Kennedy*


----------



## 52ndStreet

There are millions of people here on Earth that still do not have access to clean drinking water, and we are spending billions on failed missions to Mars! with robots to survey a Dead planet?!!. When are some of you Space geeks going to wake up?!!


----------



## Flopper

52ndStreet said:


> There are millions of people here on Earth that still do not have access to clean drinking water, and we are spending billions on failed missions to Mars! with robots to survey a Dead planet?!!. When are some of you Space geeks going to wake up?!!


The same argument could have been made and probably was, when we decide to go into space and go to the moon.  People were starving, going without clean water, healthcare, and education.  In 1804, Jefferson could have told Lewis in Clark.  Money is tight. Our Navy needs ship.  What is to be gained exploring the wildness?  Since the beginning of time man has been explored the unknown and much of our advancement can be traced to those exploration.


----------



## zaangalewa

52ndStreet said:


> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!



Exactly. Humans are made for ... made for ... what did you say what we are made for? To have problems on Earth and better not to die on hunger? Why not to have the problem not to be roasted from interstellar radiation and better not to die on hunger?


----------



## zaangalewa

SandSquid said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> Humans were not made to travel in the air or on the water either.  Neither were we designed to move faster than a very few miles per hour.
> 
> You some kinda Luddite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See what happens when you give the Amish a computer.. lol
Click to expand...


The computer will produce barns for free with woodcraft.


----------



## zaangalewa

52ndStreet said:


> Like I said, any space mission that's going to take three of more years, is a suicide mission.!.



So perhaps it's better to let Columbus wait, until we will be able to construct better ships. Otherwise he never will reach India.  But how to construct better ships, when we don't start to construct ships at all?


----------



## james bond

fncceo said:


> It was here billions of years without us and will be here billions of years after we're gone.









I keep telling you we haven't been here billions of years and once this planet is gone, it and we will be gone.

I don't mind spending $$$s for space stations.  Don't think we can live on Mars or the moon.  I'm not ready to chuck using the moon as a fuel station, but agree with the naysayers on the solar radiation.


----------



## Mindful

We don't live long enough for space travel.

How do we get round that? Transplant into robots?


----------



## candycorn

Would you want to go into space?  Anyone?


----------



## Mindful

candycorn said:


> Would you want to go into space?  Anyone?



No. I'd get homesick.


----------



## fncceo

james bond said:


> I keep telling you we haven't been here billions of years



We haven't been here billions of years ... but the planet has.  It didn't notice when we arrived, it won't notice when we're gone.


----------



## fncceo

candycorn said:


> Would you want to go into space?  Anyone?



Of course, there is something visceral in the human spirit of adventure to go to new places.  

Going into space, at least for the near future, would be extraordinarily difficult and dangerous for humans.  But, the same can be said for the great voyages of exploration of the 17th and 18th Centuries ... and, at least in space, we know where we're going and what will meet us when we get there.


----------



## Mindful

fncceo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep telling you we haven't been here billions of years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We haven't been here billions of years ... but the planet has.  It didn't notice when we arrived, it won't notice when we're gone.
Click to expand...


That's my  view too. When the save-the-planet mob start spouting off. 

They're only concerned about their own comfort and welfare. (Oh dear, a storm's coming in from the Atlantic. It might blow my roof off!)

Who do we think we are? The planet will just shrug us off. Without a second thought.


----------



## candycorn

fncceo said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you want to go into space?  Anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, there is something visceral in the human spirit of adventure to go to new places.
> 
> Going into space, at least for the near future, would be extraordinarily difficult and dangerous for humans.  But, the same can be said for the great voyages of exploration of the 17th and 18th Centuries ... and, at least in space, we know where we're going and what will meet us when we get there.
Click to expand...


My biggest gripe would be clean clothing and the lack thereof.  Wearing the same outfit for days at a time....yuck!  

I think I would be bored by the 13th orbit.  The only thing more boring for me would be an inter-planetary trip with months between seeing Earth and Mars.


----------



## fncceo

candycorn said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you want to go into space?  Anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, there is something visceral in the human spirit of adventure to go to new places.
> 
> Going into space, at least for the near future, would be extraordinarily difficult and dangerous for humans.  But, the same can be said for the great voyages of exploration of the 17th and 18th Centuries ... and, at least in space, we know where we're going and what will meet us when we get there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My biggest gripe would be clean clothing and the lack thereof.  Wearing the same outfit for days at a time....yuck!
> 
> I think I would be bored by the 13th orbit.  The only thing more boring for me would be an inter-planetary trip with months between seeing Earth and Mars.
Click to expand...


The voyages of exploration took years and clean clothes weren't really an option.  On the other hand, the ports of call weren't barren rocks...


----------



## Mindful

candycorn said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you want to go into space?  Anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, there is something visceral in the human spirit of adventure to go to new places.
> 
> Going into space, at least for the near future, would be extraordinarily difficult and dangerous for humans.  But, the same can be said for the great voyages of exploration of the 17th and 18th Centuries ... and, at least in space, we know where we're going and what will meet us when we get there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My biggest gripe would be clean clothing and the lack thereof.  Wearing the same outfit for days at a time....yuck!
> 
> I think I would be bored by the 13th orbit.  The only thing more boring for me would be an inter-planetary trip with months between seeing Earth and Mars.
Click to expand...


Watching Apollo 13 put me off. When they had to shut down nearly everything in order to conserve power. Including the urine disposal facility.


----------



## james bond

fncceo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep telling you we haven't been here billions of years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We haven't been here billions of years ... but the planet has.  It didn't notice when we arrived, it won't notice when we're gone.
Click to expand...


No we haven't.  It's a made up fairy tale by those who believe in evolution.

We can't be finding _millions of years old_ fossils so easily.

LMGTFY


----------



## fncceo

james bond said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep telling you we haven't been here billions of years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We haven't been here billions of years ... but the planet has.  It didn't notice when we arrived, it won't notice when we're gone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No we haven't.  It's a made up fairy tale by those who believe in evolution.
> 
> We can't be finding _millions of years old_ fossils so easily.
> 
> LMGTFY
Click to expand...


I'm not sure how to address the fact that you can't discern between geology and biology.  

That being said, what you believe has zero impact on what humans do, or don't do, for the next few centuries.  It will happen without your input.


----------



## Mindful

One of the things that the Overlords prohibit is space research or travel; at one point, Karellen even says pointedly that the stars are not for man. This vexes mankind in that they lose a sense of adventure and possibility, and are veritable prisoners on their own planet. However, Jan comes to agree that mankind is not ready for what is out there in the far reaches of space; it is too disconcerting, too incomprehensible, and too foreign. 

The Overlords were right to shield mankind from an equivalent situation of a man from the Stone Age showing up in modern times. Of course, it isn't quite clear if Clarke himself believes this; in fact, he has said that he does not. He does seem cognizant, though, that there may be much we have to reconcile ourselves to that makes us uncomfortable or afraid.

Childhood’s End Quotes and Analysis | GradeSaver


----------



## Crepitus

zaangalewa said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> Humans were not made to travel in the air or on the water either.  Neither were we designed to move faster than a very few miles per hour.
> 
> You some kinda Luddite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See what happens when you give the Amish a computer.. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The computer will produce barns for free with woodcraft.
Click to expand...

Naw,.they spend all day surfing dodgy pornsites.


----------



## zaangalewa

Crepitus said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> Humans were not made to travel in the air or on the water either.  Neither were we designed to move faster than a very few miles per hour.
> 
> You some kinda Luddite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See what happens when you give the Amish a computer.. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The computer will produce barns for free with woodcraft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Naw,.they spend all day surfing dodgy pornsites.
Click to expand...


Let  me say it in this way: Better you do not try to motivate any of the united idiots of the world to murder the Amish, who is the best friend of an unbelievable mighty Extraterrestrian.


----------



## Crepitus

zaangalewa said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> Humans were not made to travel in the air or on the water either.  Neither were we designed to move faster than a very few miles per hour.
> 
> You some kinda Luddite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See what happens when you give the Amish a computer.. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The computer will produce barns for free with woodcraft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Naw,.they spend all day surfing dodgy pornsites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let  me say it in this way: Better you do not try to motivate any of the united idiots of the world to murder the Amish, who is the best friend of an unbelievable mighty Extraterrestrian.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what that means.

If it actually means anything.


----------



## zaangalewa

Crepitus said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Humans were not made to travel in the air or on the water either.  Neither were we designed to move faster than a very few miles per hour.
> 
> You some kinda Luddite?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See what happens when you give the Amish a computer.. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The computer will produce barns for free with woodcraft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Naw,.they spend all day surfing dodgy pornsites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let  me say it in this way: Better you do not try to motivate any of the united idiots of the world to murder the Amish, who is the best friend of an unbelievable mighty Extraterrestrian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure what that means.
> 
> If it actually means anything.
Click to expand...


Sure. Bayer - german company - bought Monsanto - US-American company. Now the value of Bayer is about the same as the price was they had payed for Monsanto. And Germans are now responsible for the wrong deeds of the former owners of Monsanto. That's what US-Americans love. They feel smart and clever in such cases and love it to call the people they betrayed bad and evil the same time. I call them all idiots. The betrayers as well as the betrayed. What a waste of human energy.


----------



## Crepitus

zaangalewa said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> See what happens when you give the Amish a computer.. lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The computer will produce barns for free with woodcraft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Naw,.they spend all day surfing dodgy pornsites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let  me say it in this way: Better you do not try to motivate any of the united idiots of the world to murder the Amish, who is the best friend of an unbelievable mighty Extraterrestrian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure what that means.
> 
> If it actually means anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. Bayer - german company - bought Monsanto - US-American company. Now the value of Bayer is about the same as the price was they had payed for Monsanto. And Germans are now responsible for the wrong deeds of the former owners of Monsanto. That's what US-Americans love. They feel smart and clever in such cases and love it to call the people they betrayed bad and evil the same time. I call them all idiots. The betrayers as well as the betrayed. What a waste of human energy.
Click to expand...

Okaaaaaayyy.....   I'm not sure what that has to do with Mormons surfing porn.........?

Just a quick question: are you having the same conversation as the rest of us?


----------



## zaangalewa

Crepitus said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> The computer will produce barns for free with woodcraft.
> 
> 
> 
> Naw,.they spend all day surfing dodgy pornsites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let  me say it in this way: Better you do not try to motivate any of the united idiots of the world to murder the Amish, who is the best friend of an unbelievable mighty Extraterrestrian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure what that means.
> 
> If it actually means anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. Bayer - german company - bought Monsanto - US-American company. Now the value of Bayer is about the same as the price was they had payed for Monsanto. And Germans are now responsible for the wrong deeds of the former owners of Monsanto. That's what US-Americans love. They feel smart and clever in such cases and love it to call the people they betrayed bad and evil the same time. I call them all idiots. The betrayers as well as the betrayed. What a waste of human energy.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okaaaaaayyy.....   I'm not sure what that has to do with Mormons surfing porn.........?
> 
> Just a quick question: are you having the same conversation as the rest of us?
Click to expand...


You propagated contempt against the Amish on reason of the US-american way of stupidity. I on my own had not any reason to speak about the Amish here. But meanwhile I'm tired about all hate mongerers. You should not think any ET would be happy to see you. But perhaps the same ET is very happy to meet Amische.


----------



## Crepitus

zaangalewa said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Naw,.they spend all day surfing dodgy pornsites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let  me say it in this way: Better you do not try to motivate any of the united idiots of the world to murder the Amish, who is the best friend of an unbelievable mighty Extraterrestrian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure what that means.
> 
> If it actually means anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. Bayer - german company - bought Monsanto - US-American company. Now the value of Bayer is about the same as the price was they had payed for Monsanto. And Germans are now responsible for the wrong deeds of the former owners of Monsanto. That's what US-Americans love. They feel smart and clever in such cases and love it to call the people they betrayed bad and evil the same time. I call them all idiots. The betrayers as well as the betrayed. What a waste of human energy.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okaaaaaayyy.....   I'm not sure what that has to do with Mormons surfing porn.........?
> 
> Just a quick question: are you having the same conversation as the rest of us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You propagated hate against the Amish on reason of the US-american way of stupidity.
Click to expand...

I do?

News to me!!

When did I do that?


----------



## zaangalewa

Crepitus said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let  me say it in this way: Better you do not try to motivate any of the united idiots of the world to murder the Amish, who is the best friend of an unbelievable mighty Extraterrestrian.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what that means.
> 
> If it actually means anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. Bayer - german company - bought Monsanto - US-American company. Now the value of Bayer is about the same as the price was they had payed for Monsanto. And Germans are now responsible for the wrong deeds of the former owners of Monsanto. That's what US-Americans love. They feel smart and clever in such cases and love it to call the people they betrayed bad and evil the same time. I call them all idiots. The betrayers as well as the betrayed. What a waste of human energy.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okaaaaaayyy.....   I'm not sure what that has to do with Mormons surfing porn.........?
> 
> Just a quick question: are you having the same conversation as the rest of us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You propagated hate against the Amish on reason of the US-american way of stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do?
> 
> News to me!!
> 
> When did I do that?
Click to expand...


It's not my problem that you don't know yourselve.


----------



## Crepitus

zaangalewa said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what that means.
> 
> If it actually means anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Bayer - german company - bought Monsanto - US-American company. Now the value of Bayer is about the same as the price was they had payed for Monsanto. And Germans are now responsible for the wrong deeds of the former owners of Monsanto. That's what US-Americans love. They feel smart and clever in such cases and love it to call the people they betrayed bad and evil the same time. I call them all idiots. The betrayers as well as the betrayed. What a waste of human energy.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okaaaaaayyy.....   I'm not sure what that has to do with Mormons surfing porn.........?
> 
> Just a quick question: are you having the same conversation as the rest of us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You propagated hate against the Amish on reason of the US-american way of stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do?
> 
> News to me!!
> 
> When did I do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not my problem that you don't know yourselve.
Click to expand...

Well alrighty then.


Dude, I'm not saying you're crazy, but you are about as stable and a trailer home in a tornado.


----------



## Mindful

zaangalewa said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what that means.
> 
> If it actually means anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Bayer - german company - bought Monsanto - US-American company. Now the value of Bayer is about the same as the price was they had payed for Monsanto. And Germans are now responsible for the wrong deeds of the former owners of Monsanto. That's what US-Americans love. They feel smart and clever in such cases and love it to call the people they betrayed bad and evil the same time. I call them all idiots. The betrayers as well as the betrayed. What a waste of human energy.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okaaaaaayyy.....   I'm not sure what that has to do with Mormons surfing porn.........?
> 
> Just a quick question: are you having the same conversation as the rest of us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You propagated hate against the Amish on reason of the US-american way of stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do?
> 
> News to me!!
> 
> When did I do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not my problem that you don't know yourselve.
Click to expand...


It's not yours either.


----------



## zaangalewa

Crepitus said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Bayer - german company - bought Monsanto - US-American company. Now the value of Bayer is about the same as the price was they had payed for Monsanto. And Germans are now responsible for the wrong deeds of the former owners of Monsanto. That's what US-Americans love. They feel smart and clever in such cases and love it to call the people they betrayed bad and evil the same time. I call them all idiots. The betrayers as well as the betrayed. What a waste of human energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okaaaaaayyy.....   I'm not sure what that has to do with Mormons surfing porn.........?
> 
> Just a quick question: are you having the same conversation as the rest of us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You propagated hate against the Amish on reason of the US-american way of stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do?
> 
> News to me!!
> 
> When did I do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not my problem that you don't know yourselve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well alrighty then.
> 
> 
> Dude, I'm not saying you're crazy, but you are about as stable and a trailer home in a tornado.
Click to expand...


no comment


----------



## zaangalewa

Mindful said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Bayer - german company - bought Monsanto - US-American company. Now the value of Bayer is about the same as the price was they had payed for Monsanto. And Germans are now responsible for the wrong deeds of the former owners of Monsanto. That's what US-Americans love. They feel smart and clever in such cases and love it to call the people they betrayed bad and evil the same time. I call them all idiots. The betrayers as well as the betrayed. What a waste of human energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okaaaaaayyy.....   I'm not sure what that has to do with Mormons surfing porn.........?
> 
> Just a quick question: are you having the same conversation as the rest of us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You propagated hate against the Amish on reason of the US-american way of stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do?
> 
> News to me!!
> 
> When did I do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not my problem that you don't know yourselve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not yours either.
Click to expand...


And who are you? Another propagator of hate supporting propagators of hate by trying to force everyone to tolerate hate speech against religious people? New Zealand? Sri Lanka? ...


----------



## cwise76

52ndStreet said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Years long missions could be carried out on ships with artificial gravity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Cosmic Gama ray radiation that any Mars three year mission Astronauts would be exposed to, if they make it to Mars or are able to lift off of Mars once they land, could kill them all.
Click to expand...

Well that settles it then. The expert has spoken  Mars is off the table forever


----------



## zaangalewa

cwise76 said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Years long missions could be carried out on ships with artificial gravity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Cosmic Gama ray radiation that any Mars three year mission Astronauts would be exposed to, if they make it to Mars or are able to lift off of Mars once they land, could kill them all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that settles it then. The expert has spoken  Mars is off the table forever
Click to expand...


Radiation is energy. Why not to use it just simple for the drive? The situation is perhaps nearly the same as sailing in the wind. Because wind and water cool a biological body to death means not sailing ships are impossible.


----------



## Montrovant

Mindful said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep telling you we haven't been here billions of years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We haven't been here billions of years ... but the planet has.  It didn't notice when we arrived, it won't notice when we're gone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's my  view too. When the save-the-planet mob start spouting off.
> 
> They're only concerned about their own comfort and welfare. (Oh dear, a storm's coming in from the Atlantic. It might blow my roof off!)
> 
> Who do we think we are? The planet will just shrug us off. Without a second thought.
Click to expand...


The planet will likely shrug us off without a first thought.  Planets aren't known for thinking.


----------



## Pilot1

52ndStreet said:


> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!



Hal?  Is that you?


----------



## toobfreak

52ndStreet said:


> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!



As someone with more than a passing background in astronomy, I kinda have to give the nod to you.  There are HUGE problems with putting people into long term space:

Weightlessness.  A real killer.  You NEED gravity. Over a long time the body can eventually adapt to a lesser gravity environment, but the easy solution is rotating sections in vessels to simulate gravity.  

Radiation.  This is the tough one.  Outside Earth's protective envelop, we die.  Ships can try to have some protection by using water and waste in walls, but on the Moon and Mars, you'd have to live underground.
Durability.  A spec of dust going 25,000 mph will puncture right through our ships.  WE really don't have the means to build things to withstand space impacts nor the technology to deflect them with repulsive energy shells.
Motive power.  Rocket power is wholly inadequate in space.  98% of the ship's weight is fuel holding you back to get to a feeble speed, then you don't have the power to stop, change direction or navigate much.
That said, there still is a market for low orbit missions and the Moon.  Going to Mars is a YUGE step.  Doable in time.  But your point is taken, we have bigger problems here at home, but space exploration is not an area where we waste the most money.  We waste a LOT of money on far worse things;  but much of the technology you have around you now CAME from the space program.


----------



## Mindful

Montrovant said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep telling you we haven't been here billions of years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We haven't been here billions of years ... but the planet has.  It didn't notice when we arrived, it won't notice when we're gone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's my  view too. When the save-the-planet mob start spouting off.
> 
> They're only concerned about their own comfort and welfare. (Oh dear, a storm's coming in from the Atlantic. It might blow my roof off!)
> 
> Who do we think we are? The planet will just shrug us off. Without a second thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The planet will likely shrug us off without a first thought.  Planets aren't known for thinking.
Click to expand...


It was just a turn of phrase.

Smartarse.


----------



## james bond

fncceo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep telling you we haven't been here billions of years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We haven't been here billions of years ... but the planet has.  It didn't notice when we arrived, it won't notice when we're gone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No we haven't.  It's a made up fairy tale by those who believe in evolution.
> 
> We can't be finding _millions of years old_ fossils so easily.
> 
> LMGTFY
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how to address the fact that you can't discern between geology and biology.
> 
> That being said, what you believe has zero impact on what humans do, or don't do, for the next few centuries.  It will happen without your input.
Click to expand...


The planet is relatively really young.  The changes that will take place in the near future has to do with our borders.  We will notice when these kinds of things happen or else you are an ostrich with its head in the sand. 

It applies to geology and uniformitarianism, too.  The present isn't the key to our past.  The past was much different and catastrophism shaped our planet.  It isn't billions of years old.  We do not understand what millions of years would do to it let alone billions of years.  All of it based on evolution since it required long time and some schmoe (Clair Patterson) provided wrong data using radiometric dating.  One would be better off with computer dating.


----------



## Pilot1

^^^^^^Great post.  The Space Race was all about beating the Soviet Union, and more a Defense/Military program than anything.  Once we did that, the space program took a back seat to other things.  It was fun in the 60's and 70's though.  

Now, Ironically, we use their rockets for our astronauts to go into space.


----------



## ABikerSailor

You know what I think?  EVERY person who is elected to lead their country should get a free trip to space with at least 3 orbits.  Maybe then, the people that lead countries would understand that we are all on this planet together.


----------



## Unkotare

ABikerSailor said:


> You know what I think?  EVERY person who is elected to lead their country should get a free trip to space with at least 3 orbits.  Maybe then, the people that lead countries would understand that we are all on this planet together.




Most should get a free trip with one orbit - of the entire Milky Way.


----------



## Flopper

Mindful said:


> We don't live long enough for space travel.
> 
> How do we get round that? Transplant into robots?


The first step in solving problems is to create a need for a solution.  As long we have no plans for deep explorations of space, there will be no solutions to the problems.   Had we not committed to going to the moon, we would not have made the huge advances needed to meet that challenge.


----------



## Unkotare

Humans are not made to read or write, but we do that...


----------



## toobfreak

Unkotare said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what I think?  EVERY person who is elected to lead their country should get a free trip to space with at least 3 orbits.  Maybe then, the people that lead countries would understand that we are all on this planet together.
> 
> 
> 
> Most should get a free trip with one orbit - of the entire Milky Way.
Click to expand...

We all do.  Every 225 million years.


----------



## Mindful

I've just watched Kubrick's  A Space Odyssey. Millions of miles from Earth on the Jupiter mission, and still not at the destination!

I didn't understand the ending. Having read the book some years ago to understand the ending, and then having understood it, I've forgotten what I understood. So I'm back to square one.


----------



## sparky

52ndStreet said:


> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity of space.



Perhaps....butcha just want to launch some folks anyways......~S~


----------



## Flopper

Mindful said:


> I've just watched Kubrick's  A Space Odyssey. Millions of miles from Earth on the Jupiter mission, and still not at the destination!
> 
> I didn't understand the ending. Having read the book some years ago to understand the ending, and then having understood it, I've forgotten what I understood. So I'm back to square one.


2001: A Space Odyssey — Explained


----------



## zaangalewa

Mindful said:


> I've just watched Kubrick's  A Space Odyssey. Millions of miles from Earth on the Jupiter mission, and still not at the destination!
> 
> I didn't understand the ending. Having read the book some years ago to understand the ending, and then having understood it, I've forgotten what I understood. So I'm back to square one.



... Hmm ...
_
„Unheimlich ist das menschliche Dasein und immer noch ohne Sinn […]. Ich will die Menschen den Sinn ihres Seins lehren: welcher ist der Übermensch, der Blitz aus der dunklen Wolke Mensch.“_
*Friedrich Nietzsche*

 "... [...], I will teach men the meaning of their existence: the Superman, the lightning out of the dark cloud- man.” 
*Friedrich Nietzsche*

_“Not a bad thing to know something about darkness. You can’t talk about light without some knowledge of darkness. Like your buddy Nietzsche said, 'He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.” _
*Kazuki Kaneshiro*

But I guess you do not know more now, because you still don't speak Extraterrestrian.


----------



## Mindful

zaangalewa said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've just watched Kubrick's  A Space Odyssey. Millions of miles from Earth on the Jupiter mission, and still not at the destination!
> 
> I didn't understand the ending. Having read the book some years ago to understand the ending, and then having understood it, I've forgotten what I understood. So I'm back to square one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... Hmm ...
> _
> „Unheimlich ist das menschliche Dasein und immer noch ohne Sinn […]. Ich will die Menschen den Sinn ihres Seins lehren: welcher ist der Übermensch, der Blitz aus der dunklen Wolke Mensch.“_
> *Friedrich Nietzsche*
> 
> "... [...], I will teach men the meaning of their existence: the Superman, the lightning out of the dark cloud- man.”
> *Friedrich Nietzsche*
> 
> _“Not a bad thing to know something about darkness. You can’t talk about light without some knowledge of darkness. Like your buddy Nietzsche said, 'He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.” _
> *Kazuki Kaneshiro*
> 
> But I guess you do not know more now, because you still don't speak Extraterrestrian.
Click to expand...


Arthur C Clarke wrote it.

Not Nietsche. Or that other bloke you mentioned.


----------



## zaangalewa

Mindful said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've just watched Kubrick's  A Space Odyssey. Millions of miles from Earth on the Jupiter mission, and still not at the destination!
> 
> I didn't understand the ending. Having read the book some years ago to understand the ending, and then having understood it, I've forgotten what I understood. So I'm back to square one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... Hmm ...
> _
> „Unheimlich ist das menschliche Dasein und immer noch ohne Sinn […]. Ich will die Menschen den Sinn ihres Seins lehren: welcher ist der Übermensch, der Blitz aus der dunklen Wolke Mensch.“_
> *Friedrich Nietzsche*
> 
> "... [...], I will teach men the meaning of their existence: the Superman, the lightning out of the dark cloud- man.”
> *Friedrich Nietzsche*
> 
> _“Not a bad thing to know something about darkness. You can’t talk about light without some knowledge of darkness. Like your buddy Nietzsche said, 'He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.” _
> *Kazuki Kaneshiro*
> 
> But I guess you do not know more now, because you still don't speak Extraterrestrian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arthur C Clarke wrote it.
> 
> Not Nietsche. Or that other bloke you mentioned.
Click to expand...


Nietzsche ... Arthur C. Clarke wrote it? Stanislaw Lem for example wrote "Solaris". Very fascinating

And who wrote "Hiroshima and Nagasaki"? Franklin D. Roosevelt or Harry S. Trueman?


----------



## Mindful

zaangalewa said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've just watched Kubrick's  A Space Odyssey. Millions of miles from Earth on the Jupiter mission, and still not at the destination!
> 
> I didn't understand the ending. Having read the book some years ago to understand the ending, and then having understood it, I've forgotten what I understood. So I'm back to square one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... Hmm ...
> _
> „Unheimlich ist das menschliche Dasein und immer noch ohne Sinn […]. Ich will die Menschen den Sinn ihres Seins lehren: welcher ist der Übermensch, der Blitz aus der dunklen Wolke Mensch.“_
> *Friedrich Nietzsche*
> 
> "... [...], I will teach men the meaning of their existence: the Superman, the lightning out of the dark cloud- man.”
> *Friedrich Nietzsche*
> 
> _“Not a bad thing to know something about darkness. You can’t talk about light without some knowledge of darkness. Like your buddy Nietzsche said, 'He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.” _
> *Kazuki Kaneshiro*
> 
> But I guess you do not know more now, because you still don't speak Extraterrestrian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arthur C Clarke wrote it.
> 
> Not Nietsche. Or that other bloke you mentioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nietzsche ... Arthur C. Clarke wrote it? Stanislaw Lem for example wrote "Solaris". Very fascinating
> 
> And who wrote "Hieroshima and Nagasaki"? Franklin D. Roosevelt or Harry S. Trueman?
Click to expand...


So you can't explain the ending?

Which is what I asked.


----------



## justoffal

konradv said:


> Years long missions could be carried out on ships with artificial gravity.



There is no such thing as artificial gravity.
Centrifugal force can approximate it but it still lacks lacks uniformity.

Jo


----------



## justoffal

Sunni Man said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings.
> 
> 
> 
> What scientific studies are your referring to??  ..
Click to expand...


The ahh, err.....the science ones!

Jo


----------



## Mindful

Flopper said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've just watched Kubrick's  A Space Odyssey. Millions of miles from Earth on the Jupiter mission, and still not at the destination!
> 
> I didn't understand the ending. Having read the book some years ago to understand the ending, and then having understood it, I've forgotten what I understood. So I'm back to square one.
> 
> 
> 
> 2001: A Space Odyssey — Explained
Click to expand...


Thank you.

So there is a superior entity watching over us?

This resonated: "Kubrick’s point is that for a society to progress, there must be conflict."

Flies in the face of the peace mongers, tree huggers, wreath layers, and candle lighters.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

who was the idiot in the 1800's who said man has reached the pinnacle of technical innovation 

Unfortunately i dont think we're going anywhere anytime soon 
casue it woud be a pleasure to visit somewhere that wasn't corrupted with lefttards

alpha centuri > thats probably the first place we're headed to

*Confirmed planets. Only one planet has been confirmed for the Alpha Centauri system: Proxima Centauri b. It is slightly larger than the Earth, and orbits around Proxima Centauri in the habitable zone.*

we're takin the oil 
i was born to soon 
im here for civil war 2


----------



## Mindful

Putting the astronauts into artificial hibernation might work.


----------



## zaangalewa

Mindful said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've just watched Kubrick's  A Space Odyssey. Millions of miles from Earth on the Jupiter mission, and still not at the destination!
> 
> I didn't understand the ending. Having read the book some years ago to understand the ending, and then having understood it, I've forgotten what I understood. So I'm back to square one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... Hmm ...
> _
> „Unheimlich ist das menschliche Dasein und immer noch ohne Sinn […]. Ich will die Menschen den Sinn ihres Seins lehren: welcher ist der Übermensch, der Blitz aus der dunklen Wolke Mensch.“_
> *Friedrich Nietzsche*
> 
> "... [...], I will teach men the meaning of their existence: the Superman, the lightning out of the dark cloud- man.”
> *Friedrich Nietzsche*
> 
> _“Not a bad thing to know something about darkness. You can’t talk about light without some knowledge of darkness. Like your buddy Nietzsche said, 'He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.” _
> *Kazuki Kaneshiro*
> 
> But I guess you do not know more now, because you still don't speak Extraterrestrian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arthur C Clarke wrote it.
> 
> Not Nietsche. Or that other bloke you mentioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nietzsche ... Arthur C. Clarke wrote it? Stanislaw Lem for example wrote "Solaris". Very fascinating
> 
> And who wrote "Hieroshima and Nagasaki"? Franklin D. Roosevelt or Harry S. Trueman?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't explain the ending?
> 
> Which is what I asked.
Click to expand...


I do not start again to tell you now something, what I thought about. Read another book - not me.


----------



## Mindful

zaangalewa said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've just watched Kubrick's  A Space Odyssey. Millions of miles from Earth on the Jupiter mission, and still not at the destination!
> 
> I didn't understand the ending. Having read the book some years ago to understand the ending, and then having understood it, I've forgotten what I understood. So I'm back to square one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... Hmm ...
> _
> „Unheimlich ist das menschliche Dasein und immer noch ohne Sinn […]. Ich will die Menschen den Sinn ihres Seins lehren: welcher ist der Übermensch, der Blitz aus der dunklen Wolke Mensch.“_
> *Friedrich Nietzsche*
> 
> "... [...], I will teach men the meaning of their existence: the Superman, the lightning out of the dark cloud- man.”
> *Friedrich Nietzsche*
> 
> _“Not a bad thing to know something about darkness. You can’t talk about light without some knowledge of darkness. Like your buddy Nietzsche said, 'He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.” _
> *Kazuki Kaneshiro*
> 
> But I guess you do not know more now, because you still don't speak Extraterrestrian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arthur C Clarke wrote it.
> 
> Not Nietsche. Or that other bloke you mentioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nietzsche ... Arthur C. Clarke wrote it? Stanislaw Lem for example wrote "Solaris". Very fascinating
> 
> And who wrote "Hieroshima and Nagasaki"? Franklin D. Roosevelt or Harry S. Trueman?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't explain the ending?
> 
> Which is what I asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not start again to tell you now something, what I thought about. Read another book - not me.
Click to expand...


So you still don't know?


----------



## zaangalewa

Mindful said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Hmm ...
> _
> „Unheimlich ist das menschliche Dasein und immer noch ohne Sinn […]. Ich will die Menschen den Sinn ihres Seins lehren: welcher ist der Übermensch, der Blitz aus der dunklen Wolke Mensch.“_
> *Friedrich Nietzsche*
> 
> "... [...], I will teach men the meaning of their existence: the Superman, the lightning out of the dark cloud- man.”
> *Friedrich Nietzsche*
> 
> _“Not a bad thing to know something about darkness. You can’t talk about light without some knowledge of darkness. Like your buddy Nietzsche said, 'He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.” _
> *Kazuki Kaneshiro*
> 
> But I guess you do not know more now, because you still don't speak Extraterrestrian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arthur C Clarke wrote it.
> 
> Not Nietsche. Or that other bloke you mentioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nietzsche ... Arthur C. Clarke wrote it? Stanislaw Lem for example wrote "Solaris". Very fascinating
> 
> And who wrote "Hieroshima and Nagasaki"? Franklin D. Roosevelt or Harry S. Trueman?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't explain the ending?
> 
> Which is what I asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not start again to tell you now something, what I thought about. Read another book - not me.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you still don't know?
Click to expand...


----------



## 22lcidw

Well after Space X Dragon 2 anomaly it looks like we won't send Americans into space on our own until the year 2525. How do you spend resources on manned spaceflight and it still fails? I wonder if it was sabotaged by the deep state to keep Boeing's version from not looking so bad. But hey...the quotas are working just fine.


----------



## Flopper

Mindful said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've just watched Kubrick's  A Space Odyssey. Millions of miles from Earth on the Jupiter mission, and still not at the destination!
> 
> I didn't understand the ending. Having read the book some years ago to understand the ending, and then having understood it, I've forgotten what I understood. So I'm back to square one.
> 
> 
> 
> 2001: A Space Odyssey — Explained
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> So there is a superior entity watching over us?
> 
> This resonated: "Kubrick’s point is that for a society to progress, there must be conflict."
> 
> Flies in the face of the peace mongers, tree huggers, wreath layers, and candle lighters.
Click to expand...

Yes, conflict in development of the species, eternal conflict, not sure about that.  Assuming man doesn't blow himself up or destroy the planet, I think it's a good guess that man and machine will someday merge considering the advances in genetics, artificial intelligence, and robotics.  In fact, I would think an android human would seem likely in the year 3,000 if not sooner.  Then we may see a more rational human guided more by logic than emotion.


----------



## sealybobo

Mindful said:


> I've just watched Kubrick's  A Space Odyssey. Millions of miles from Earth on the Jupiter mission, and still not at the destination!
> 
> I didn't understand the ending. Having read the book some years ago to understand the ending, and then having understood it, I've forgotten what I understood. So I'm back to square one.


I just saw it too


----------



## westwall

52ndStreet said:


> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!






Mankinds survival REQUIRES that we master space travel.


----------



## Unkotare

westwall said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mankinds survival REQUIRES that we master space travel.
Click to expand...




Moot point


----------



## westwall

Unkotare said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mankinds survival REQUIRES that we master space travel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moot point
Click to expand...






Only if you're a moron.


----------



## rightwinger

52ndStreet said:


> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!



Agree

Space travel should be done by R2D2 not Buck Rogers


----------



## westwall

I see bodie, the village idiot, has chimed in with her obligatory laughing emoji.

Typical, too stupid to engage in discussion, and too cowardly to try and learn something.


----------



## Unkotare

westwall said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mankinds survival REQUIRES that we master space travel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moot point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you're a moron.
Click to expand...




You planning on living a couple hundred million years? Take your vitamins.


----------



## rightwinger

westwall said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mankinds survival REQUIRES that we master space travel.
Click to expand...

What is wrong with the planet we have?


----------



## night_son

52ndStreet said:


> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!



Sure. Kind of like humans were not made to travel for months across oceans.


----------



## rightwinger

night_son said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Kind of like humans were not made to travel for months across oceans.
Click to expand...

Thousand died

We are talking years in space and then a lifetime on a questionably inhabitable planet


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mankinds survival REQUIRES that we master space travel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is wrong with the planet we have?
Click to expand...






It is singular.  One big ass rock will end civilization, and possibly life on this planet at some time in its future unless we do something to prevent that.  In all of this worlds history, we are the only creatures capable of preventing an asteroid strike.


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> night_son said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Kind of like humans were not made to travel for months across oceans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thousand died
> 
> We are talking years in space and then a lifetime on a questionably inhabitable planet
Click to expand...







You anti science types crack me up.  Man is a technological creature.  We MAKE things that allow us to advance.  THAT is progress.  You people instead choose regressive policies that only create a two tiered civilization, the rich and the poor.  And nothing happens until the next catastrophe.  

Take a look through all of history and you will find one very important fact, every "sustainable" civilization that has ever existed, failed when a natural disaster occurred.


----------



## westwall

Unkotare said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mankinds survival REQUIRES that we master space travel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moot point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you're a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You planning on living a couple hundred million years? Take your vitamins.
Click to expand...






No, but I would like mankind to be able to.

Don't you?  Or are you the typical small minded person who only cares about the here and now?


----------



## james bond

Mindful said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've just watched Kubrick's  A Space Odyssey. Millions of miles from Earth on the Jupiter mission, and still not at the destination!
> 
> I didn't understand the ending. Having read the book some years ago to understand the ending, and then having understood it, I've forgotten what I understood. So I'm back to square one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... Hmm ...
> _
> „Unheimlich ist das menschliche Dasein und immer noch ohne Sinn […]. Ich will die Menschen den Sinn ihres Seins lehren: welcher ist der Übermensch, der Blitz aus der dunklen Wolke Mensch.“_
> *Friedrich Nietzsche*
> 
> "... [...], I will teach men the meaning of their existence: the Superman, the lightning out of the dark cloud- man.”
> *Friedrich Nietzsche*
> 
> _“Not a bad thing to know something about darkness. You can’t talk about light without some knowledge of darkness. Like your buddy Nietzsche said, 'He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.” _
> *Kazuki Kaneshiro*
> 
> But I guess you do not know more now, because you still don't speak Extraterrestrian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arthur C Clarke wrote it.
> 
> Not Nietsche. Or that other bloke you mentioned.
Click to expand...


Wasn't Clarke an atheist?  If he was, then he put in one of the references to the monolith to be a representation of God.  The movie doesn't explicitly state it as such, but this interpretation comes out in the discussion afterward since the movie is not explained (which I enjoyed immensely as such).  It's on the level of complex movies such as Mulholland Drive (2001).


----------



## james bond

westwall said:


> Mankinds survival REQUIRES that we master space travel.



Not really.  The Earth is more sturdy than that.  However, it would be nice to have an option besides space stations.  We may or may not be able to become multi-planetary, but it does not mean that we should not try.  Humans would become the first aliens.


----------



## Unkotare

westwall said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mankinds survival REQUIRES that we master space travel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moot point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you're a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You planning on living a couple hundred million years? Take your vitamins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but I would like mankind to be able to.
> 
> Don't you?  Or are you the typical small minded person who only cares about the here and now?
Click to expand...



Do you realize the scale of time we’re talking about? The chances that our species will still exist by the time finding a new planet is imperative are ridiculously small and so far beyond the experience of anyone or anything remotely related to you that for all intents and purposes it is a theoretical matter at most.


----------



## Unkotare

westwall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> night_son said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Kind of like humans were not made to travel for months across oceans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thousand died
> 
> We are talking years in space and then a lifetime on a questionably inhabitable planet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You anti science types crack me up.  Man is a technological creature.  We MAKE things that allow us to advance.  ...
Click to expand...




No, things make us advance.


----------



## westwall

Unkotare said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mankinds survival REQUIRES that we master space travel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moot point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you're a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You planning on living a couple hundred million years? Take your vitamins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but I would like mankind to be able to.
> 
> Don't you?  Or are you the typical small minded person who only cares about the here and now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize the scale of time we’re talking about? The chances that our species will still exist by the time finding a new planet is imperative are ridiculously small and so far beyond the experience of anyone or anything remotely related to you that for all intents and purposes it is a theoretical matter at most.
Click to expand...








Yeah, I do.  We will be engaged in real spaceflight, not this planetary mode we are stuck in now, within 100 years.  It will probably not be FTL travel, but it will be interstellar travel.


----------



## westwall

Unkotare said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> night_son said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Kind of like humans were not made to travel for months across oceans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thousand died
> 
> We are talking years in space and then a lifetime on a questionably inhabitable planet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You anti science types crack me up.  Man is a technological creature.  We MAKE things that allow us to advance.  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, things make us advance.
Click to expand...






Yes, they do.  Things allow man to spend time thinking.  Just think, 150 years ago it took months to cross the USA.  Now, it is hours.  All of those hours not spent engaged in the arduous task of travel, can be spent in creation.  Things allow creation.  Creation drive progress.


----------



## james bond

Unkotare said:


> Do you realize the scale of time we’re talking about? The chances that our species will still exist by the time finding a new planet is imperative are ridiculously small and so far beyond the experience of anyone or anything remotely related to you that for all intents and purposes it is a theoretical matter at most.



The type of thinking that is a waste of money is thinking that we _have_ to find a new planet.  The Earth can survive quite handily.  AGW is no threat.

NASA proposes that we send humans to Mars in order to find evidence of alien life or past alien life.  If they find that Mars can be colonized, then it is a side benefit.  That said, Mars likely will not be able to be colonized as it is too harsh for human life.


----------



## Unkotare

We should explore for the sake of exploration. That is in our genes, literally. We should try to learn as much as we can about the universe for the sake of knowledge itself. That is what makes us human.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

52ndStreet said:


> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!




Yabut, trump says he expects us to be on Mars by the time he leaves office. 

LOL

I agree with your post.


----------



## rightwinger

westwall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mankinds survival REQUIRES that we master space travel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is wrong with the planet we have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is singular.  One big ass rock will end civilization, and possibly life on this planet at some time in its future unless we do something to prevent that.  In all of this worlds history, we are the only creatures capable of preventing an asteroid strike.
Click to expand...


In the event of a global cataclism, we are better suited to colonize the ocean floor than some distant planet

Think of the logistics of bringing supplies to build a colony a couple of hundred feet underwater vs light years away


----------



## rightwinger

Unkotare said:


> We should explore for the sake of exploration. That is in our genes, literally. We should try to learn as much as we can about the universe for the sake of knowledge itself. That is what makes us human.



Explore with robots

They are easier to feed and we don’t care if they are destroyed


----------



## rightwinger

westwall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> night_son said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Kind of like humans were not made to travel for months across oceans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thousand died
> 
> We are talking years in space and then a lifetime on a questionably inhabitable planet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You anti science types crack me up.  Man is a technological creature.  We MAKE things that allow us to advance.  THAT is progress.  You people instead choose regressive policies that only create a two tiered civilization, the rich and the poor.  And nothing happens until the next catastrophe.
> 
> Take a look through all of history and you will find one very important fact, every "sustainable" civilization that has ever existed, failed when a natural disaster occurred.
Click to expand...

Not anti science

I support space exploration
Our greatest tool has been the Hubble telescope
Our second greatest tool has been unmanned rovers
Our third greatest tool has been unmanned space probes

Human travel does not make my list


----------



## Unkotare

rightwinger said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should explore for the sake of exploration. That is in our genes, literally. We should try to learn as much as we can about the universe for the sake of knowledge itself. That is what makes us human.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explore with robots
> 
> They are easier to feed and we don’t care if they are destroyed
Click to expand...




That ain’t gonna cut it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

While we do need to learn how to travel eventually, there are more pressing matters at home right now. I think it's fine just to use machines for quite a while.


----------



## james bond

Unkotare said:


> We should explore for the sake of exploration. That is in our genes, literally. We should try to learn as much as we can about the universe for the sake of knowledge itself. That is what makes us human.



Nah, that's a stupid waste of money.  Stupidity is not hereditary, but IQ and lack of is.


----------



## rightwinger

Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should explore for the sake of exploration. That is in our genes, literally. We should try to learn as much as we can about the universe for the sake of knowledge itself. That is what makes us human.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explore with robots
> 
> They are easier to feed and we don’t care if they are destroyed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That ain’t gonna cut it.
Click to expand...

It has been cutting it


----------



## rightwinger

We are better off investing in a new Hubble Telescope


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mankinds survival REQUIRES that we master space travel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is wrong with the planet we have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is singular.  One big ass rock will end civilization, and possibly life on this planet at some time in its future unless we do something to prevent that.  In all of this worlds history, we are the only creatures capable of preventing an asteroid strike.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the event of a global cataclism, we are better suited to colonize the ocean floor than some distant planet
> 
> Think of the logistics of bringing supplies to build a colony a couple of hundred feet underwater vs light years away
Click to expand...









Think of the logistics of trying to live underwater.  That is an environment that is every bit as harsh as space.  An asteroid strike of the size like that which wiped out the dinosaurs, would make the oceans uninhabitable as well.


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should explore for the sake of exploration. That is in our genes, literally. We should try to learn as much as we can about the universe for the sake of knowledge itself. That is what makes us human.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explore with robots
> 
> They are easier to feed and we don’t care if they are destroyed
Click to expand...







Yes, they are easier, which is why they don't drive technology advancements anywhere near as fast as human travel does.


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> night_son said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Kind of like humans were not made to travel for months across oceans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thousand died
> 
> We are talking years in space and then a lifetime on a questionably inhabitable planet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You anti science types crack me up.  Man is a technological creature.  We MAKE things that allow us to advance.  THAT is progress.  You people instead choose regressive policies that only create a two tiered civilization, the rich and the poor.  And nothing happens until the next catastrophe.
> 
> Take a look through all of history and you will find one very important fact, every "sustainable" civilization that has ever existed, failed when a natural disaster occurred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not anti science
> 
> I support space exploration
> Our greatest tool has been the Hubble telescope
> Our second greatest tool has been unmanned rovers
> Our third greatest tool has been unmanned space probes
> 
> Human travel does not make my list
Click to expand...






Wrong, the programs that led up to Apollo, and Apollo itself, drove more technological development than any other program man has ever engaged in.  The drones you so love would not exist were it not for the advancements that Apollo gave us.


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should explore for the sake of exploration. That is in our genes, literally. We should try to learn as much as we can about the universe for the sake of knowledge itself. That is what makes us human.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explore with robots
> 
> They are easier to feed and we don’t care if they are destroyed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That ain’t gonna cut it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been cutting it
Click to expand...





There are some things that drones can do very well.  But, ultimately, they are a developmental dead end.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Don't forget.......................all those GPS programs that people like to use were made possible because of satellites.


----------



## Unkotare

james bond said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should explore for the sake of exploration. That is in our genes, literally. We should try to learn as much as we can about the universe for the sake of knowledge itself. That is what makes us human.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, that's a stupid waste of money.  .....
Click to expand...




Like it or lump it; that's part of being human. Go find another species if you don't like it.


----------



## Flopper

james bond said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've just watched Kubrick's  A Space Odyssey. Millions of miles from Earth on the Jupiter mission, and still not at the destination!
> 
> I didn't understand the ending. Having read the book some years ago to understand the ending, and then having understood it, I've forgotten what I understood. So I'm back to square one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... Hmm ...
> _
> „Unheimlich ist das menschliche Dasein und immer noch ohne Sinn […]. Ich will die Menschen den Sinn ihres Seins lehren: welcher ist der Übermensch, der Blitz aus der dunklen Wolke Mensch.“_
> *Friedrich Nietzsche*
> 
> "... [...], I will teach men the meaning of their existence: the Superman, the lightning out of the dark cloud- man.”
> *Friedrich Nietzsche*
> 
> _“Not a bad thing to know something about darkness. You can’t talk about light without some knowledge of darkness. Like your buddy Nietzsche said, 'He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.” _
> *Kazuki Kaneshiro*
> 
> But I guess you do not know more now, because you still don't speak Extraterrestrian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arthur C Clarke wrote it.
> 
> Not Nietsche. Or that other bloke you mentioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't Clarke an atheist?  If he was, then he put in one of the references to the monolith to be a representation of God.  The movie doesn't explicitly state it as such, but this interpretation comes out in the discussion afterward since the movie is not explained (which I enjoyed immensely as such).  It's on the level of complex movies such as Mulholland Drive (2001).
Click to expand...

Maybe he was referring to the Firstborn.  I'm sure to humans they would appear to be God.


----------



## Flopper

Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should explore for the sake of exploration. That is in our genes, literally. We should try to learn as much as we can about the universe for the sake of knowledge itself. That is what makes us human.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explore with robots
> 
> They are easier to feed and we don’t care if they are destroyed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That ain’t gonna cut it.
Click to expand...

There are times when exploration is best done with unmanned probes and others that should be manned.  It just depends on the mission.


----------



## Unkotare

Flopper said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should explore for the sake of exploration. That is in our genes, literally. We should try to learn as much as we can about the universe for the sake of knowledge itself. That is what makes us human.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explore with robots
> 
> They are easier to feed and we don’t care if they are destroyed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That ain’t gonna cut it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are times when exploration is best done with unmanned probes and others that should be manned.  It just depends on the mission.
Click to expand...


You're talking about the green slave girls on Star Trek, aren't you?


----------



## fncceo

Unkotare said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should explore for the sake of exploration. That is in our genes, literally. We should try to learn as much as we can about the universe for the sake of knowledge itself. That is what makes us human.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explore with robots
> 
> They are easier to feed and we don’t care if they are destroyed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That ain’t gonna cut it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are times when exploration is best done with unmanned probes and others that should be manned.  It just depends on the mission.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're talking about the green slave girls on Star Trek, aren't you?
Click to expand...


Sometimes you need the services of an astronaut...


----------



## Flopper

Unkotare said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should explore for the sake of exploration. That is in our genes, literally. We should try to learn as much as we can about the universe for the sake of knowledge itself. That is what makes us human.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explore with robots
> 
> They are easier to feed and we don’t care if they are destroyed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Yeah
> 
> That ain’t gonna cut it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are times when exploration is best done with unmanned probes and others that should be manned.  It just depends on the mission.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're talking about the green slave girls on Star Trek, aren't you?
Click to expand...


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've just watched Kubrick's  A Space Odyssey. Millions of miles from Earth on the Jupiter mission, and still not at the destination!
> 
> I didn't understand the ending. Having read the book some years ago to understand the ending, and then having understood it, I've forgotten what I understood. So I'm back to square one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... Hmm ...
> _
> „Unheimlich ist das menschliche Dasein und immer noch ohne Sinn […]. Ich will die Menschen den Sinn ihres Seins lehren: welcher ist der Übermensch, der Blitz aus der dunklen Wolke Mensch.“_
> *Friedrich Nietzsche*
> 
> "... [...], I will teach men the meaning of their existence: the Superman, the lightning out of the dark cloud- man.”
> *Friedrich Nietzsche*
> 
> _“Not a bad thing to know something about darkness. You can’t talk about light without some knowledge of darkness. Like your buddy Nietzsche said, 'He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.” _
> *Kazuki Kaneshiro*
> 
> But I guess you do not know more now, because you still don't speak Extraterrestrian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arthur C Clarke wrote it.
> 
> Not Nietsche. Or that other bloke you mentioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't Clarke an atheist?
Click to expand...


No idea.



> If he was, then he put in one of the references to the monolith to be a representation of God.  The movie doesn't explicitly state it as such, but this interpretation comes out in the discussion afterward since the movie is not explained (which I enjoyed immensely as such).  It's on the level of complex movies such as Mulholland Drive (2001).



I remember a German who wrote a doctoral thesis about conjunctions of a famous German author - if I remember well the author was the Nobel price winner Heinrich Böll. When he was ready and got a good job he was interested to find out, whether his thesis was right - so he called Heinrich Böll and asked him. Heinrich Böll answered something like: _"Why I used so many different conjunctions? ... hmm ... What answer do you expect? It's a little boring always only to write "and", isn't it?"
_
I guess all science fiction authors have always the same problem: What to say about the [still] unrecognizable. In general I would say Atheists often try to find "god" again. They prefer to find or create an own god (Scientology for example) and not to be found from the loving god in real life, because it is not an easy thought to be found from the "nothing" they believe in. The materialism of the Commies for example made it for them nearly impossible to let the human being Lenin go home. They tried to conserve his body like ancient Egypts. I guess all forms of a crude materialisms, denying spirituality, will lead in the end to the dictatorship and slavery of death. And perhaps to the idea in a kind of sarcophag could live something. An AI for example.

science fiction

reality


----------



## Mindful

Unkotare said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should explore for the sake of exploration. That is in our genes, literally. We should try to learn as much as we can about the universe for the sake of knowledge itself. That is what makes us human.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, that's a stupid waste of money.  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like it or lump it; that's part of being human. Go find another species if you don't like it.
Click to expand...


I have. On USMB.


----------



## rightwinger

westwall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mankinds survival REQUIRES that we master space travel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is wrong with the planet we have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is singular.  One big ass rock will end civilization, and possibly life on this planet at some time in its future unless we do something to prevent that.  In all of this worlds history, we are the only creatures capable of preventing an asteroid strike.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the event of a global cataclism, we are better suited to colonize the ocean floor than some distant planet
> 
> Think of the logistics of bringing supplies to build a colony a couple of hundred feet underwater vs light years away
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think of the logistics of trying to live underwater.  That is an environment that is every bit as harsh as space.  An asteroid strike of the size like that which wiped out the dinosaurs, would make the oceans uninhabitable as well.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily unless it were a direct strike
The oceans provide a protective shield

It is easier to build and supply a community under water. You also have access to water and oxygen which may be scarce on a distant planet


----------



## rightwinger

westwall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should explore for the sake of exploration. That is in our genes, literally. We should try to learn as much as we can about the universe for the sake of knowledge itself. That is what makes us human.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explore with robots
> 
> They are easier to feed and we don’t care if they are destroyed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That ain’t gonna cut it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been cutting it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are some things that drones can do very well.  But, ultimately, they are a developmental dead end.
Click to expand...

Hardly a dead end
With artificial intelligence they could function on a distant planet

Problem with humans is it costs so much to sustain them and we can’t just let them die 

R2D2 is a better solution


----------



## james bond

Flopper said:


> Maybe he was referring to the Firstborn. I'm sure to humans they would appear to be God.



I didn't read the book, so Clarke may have meant the monolith to be different.  Did he bring up the Firstborn?  Is the book worth reading?

However, the director and producer Stanley Kubrick did not follow the book, and I think took it in another direction.  While the monolith could be an object planted by extraterrestrial intelligent beings, it could represent human's relationship with God.  In this case, it follows an evolutionary God who created chimps and they learned to use tools.  He had them develop, thrive and become all they could be.  There was that spectacular cut where we are shown they had reached the point of conquering outer space and bring in the world of high technology.  At the end, humans evolved into a more advanced version of themselves as a star child.  Well, it's one interpretation.


----------



## james bond

Unkotare said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should explore for the sake of exploration. That is in our genes, literally. We should try to learn as much as we can about the universe for the sake of knowledge itself. That is what makes us human.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, that's a stupid waste of money.  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like it or lump it; that's part of being human. Go find another species if you don't like it.
Click to expand...


Another species are easy to find.  We have that natural selection, hybrid selection, breeding, genetic modification and more.  We have developed to the point that one part of being human is to evaluate the best way to do something.

I think you're getting carried away by knowledge, in this case space and technology.  That said, it seems you do not have enough knowledge to understand.  Instead of stubbornly sticking to your own pov, why don't you listen and accept others?  We have already sent a lot of probes to discover what is out there.  Isn't that what we learn from movies like Star Wars or Star Trek?

List of Solar System probes - Wikipedia

We also have a lot of telescopes and high tech equipment which we recently networked to get an image of a black hole.  What did you get from that?  Most people would not think that was a stupid waste of money.


----------



## rightwinger

If God wanted us to travel in space, we would be born with jet packs


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe he was referring to the Firstborn. I'm sure to humans they would appear to be God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't read the book, so Clarke may have meant the monolith to be different.  Did he bring up the Firstborn?  Is the book worth reading?
> 
> However, the director and producer Stanley Kubrick did not follow the book, and I think took it in another direction.  While the monolith could be an object planted by extraterrestrial intelligent beings, it could represent human's relationship with God.  In this case, it follows an evolutionary God who created chimps and they learned to use tools.  He had them develop, thrive and become all they could be.  There was that spectacular cut where we are shown they had reached the point of conquering outer space and bring in the world of high technology.  At the end, humans evolved into a more advanced version of themselves as a star child.  Well, it's one interpretation.
Click to expand...

I always thought that part of the point was that we couldnt distinguish between gods and aliens.

Q: "Is it the work of gods, or aliens?"

A: "Whats the difference?"


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mankinds survival REQUIRES that we master space travel.
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with the planet we have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is singular.  One big ass rock will end civilization, and possibly life on this planet at some time in its future unless we do something to prevent that.  In all of this worlds history, we are the only creatures capable of preventing an asteroid strike.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the event of a global cataclism, we are better suited to colonize the ocean floor than some distant planet
> 
> Think of the logistics of bringing supplies to build a colony a couple of hundred feet underwater vs light years away
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think of the logistics of trying to live underwater.  That is an environment that is every bit as harsh as space.  An asteroid strike of the size like that which wiped out the dinosaurs, would make the oceans uninhabitable as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not necessarily unless it were a direct strike
> The oceans provide a protective shield
> 
> It is easier to build and supply a community under water. You also have access to water and oxygen which may be scarce on a distant planet
Click to expand...






Any asteroid strike that results in a end of life as we know it scenario, will be a direct hit.  The oceans will provide no protection in the event of an asteroid strike.  Absolutely none.


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should explore for the sake of exploration. That is in our genes, literally. We should try to learn as much as we can about the universe for the sake of knowledge itself. That is what makes us human.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explore with robots
> 
> They are easier to feed and we don’t care if they are destroyed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That ain’t gonna cut it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been cutting it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are some things that drones can do very well.  But, ultimately, they are a developmental dead end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hardly a dead end
> With artificial intelligence they could function on a distant planet
> 
> Problem with humans is it costs so much to sustain them and we can’t just let them die
> 
> R2D2 is a better solution
Click to expand...








Untrue.  Drones are a dead end because the development will only proceed to a certain point.  The reason why technology evolves more quickly with human involvement is because man is fragile.   It requires great skill, and thought, to protect that fragile passenger.  NONE of that is required for drones.


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> If God wanted us to travel in space, we would be born with jet packs






If God didn't want us to travel in space he wouldn't have given us a brain.


----------



## Ruotsa

westwall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> If God wanted us to travel in space, we would be born with jet packs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If God didn't want us to travel in space he wouldn't have given us a brain.
Click to expand...


You have not fired yet, freak?


----------



## westwall

Ruotsa said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> If God wanted us to travel in space, we would be born with jet packs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If God didn't want us to travel in space he wouldn't have given us a brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not fired yet, freak?
Click to expand...








Fired?  Whatever do you mean little sock puppet?


----------



## Ruotsa

westwall said:


> Ruotsa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> If God wanted us to travel in space, we would be born with jet packs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If God didn't want us to travel in space he wouldn't have given us a brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not fired yet, freak?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fired?  Whatever do you mean little sock puppet?
Click to expand...

you still go to the American garbage.
I always keep my promises.
ban useless.


----------



## westwall

Ruotsa said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ruotsa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> If God wanted us to travel in space, we would be born with jet packs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If God didn't want us to travel in space he wouldn't have given us a brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not fired yet, freak?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fired?  Whatever do you mean little sock puppet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you still go to the American garbage.
> I always keep my promises.
> ban useless.
Click to expand...






Yes, i expect you will be banned again soon.  That's what happens to useless twerps.  Like you.


----------



## Flopper

rightwinger said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should explore for the sake of exploration. That is in our genes, literally. We should try to learn as much as we can about the universe for the sake of knowledge itself. That is what makes us human.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explore with robots
> 
> They are easier to feed and we don’t care if they are destroyed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That ain’t gonna cut it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been cutting it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are some things that drones can do very well.  But, ultimately, they are a developmental dead end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hardly a dead end
> With artificial intelligence they could function on a distant planet
> 
> Problem with humans is it costs so much to sustain them and we can’t just let them die
> 
> R2D2 is a better solution
Click to expand...

In my opinion, the best solution is unnamed probes which can do most of what humans can do and in fact can go where no man can go.

However, there are limitations to unmanned vehicles. Humans can adapt to changing situations and repair malfunctions, probes can only execute their programming.  As AI improves, unmanned probes will be able to handle more malfunctions but we are a long way from building machines with the flexibility of humans.  Also, there is always the possibility of discovery of the totally unexpected which machines will not be programmed to handle since the the event is unexpected.

While space probes conduct good science and undertake useful missions, they do not capture the human imagination or ignite the same kind of excitement that a human physically exploring space does.  Today, an manned mission is about as exciting to the public as a going out of business sale at a furniture company.  Without public interest and support raising the money for space exploration can be almost impossible.


----------



## Flopper

james bond said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe he was referring to the Firstborn. I'm sure to humans they would appear to be God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't read the book, so Clarke may have meant the monolith to be different.  Did he bring up the Firstborn?  Is the book worth reading?
> 
> However, the director and producer Stanley Kubrick did not follow the book, and I think took it in another direction.  While the monolith could be an object planted by extraterrestrial intelligent beings, it could represent human's relationship with God.  In this case, it follows an evolutionary God who created chimps and they learned to use tools.  He had them develop, thrive and become all they could be.  There was that spectacular cut where we are shown they had reached the point of conquering outer space and bring in the world of high technology.  At the end, humans evolved into a more advanced version of themselves as a star child.  Well, it's one interpretation.
Click to expand...

I read the book and found the movie much better, not because there was more explanation but because of Kubrick's direction.  The space scenes with the Strauss waltzes, the scene with Hal calmly telling Dave that he was going to kill him, and the first scene where our human ancestor discovers using an animal bone as a weapon with the theme music in the background was great movie making.


----------



## rightwinger

westwall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with the planet we have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is singular.  One big ass rock will end civilization, and possibly life on this planet at some time in its future unless we do something to prevent that.  In all of this worlds history, we are the only creatures capable of preventing an asteroid strike.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the event of a global cataclism, we are better suited to colonize the ocean floor than some distant planet
> 
> Think of the logistics of bringing supplies to build a colony a couple of hundred feet underwater vs light years away
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think of the logistics of trying to live underwater.  That is an environment that is every bit as harsh as space.  An asteroid strike of the size like that which wiped out the dinosaurs, would make the oceans uninhabitable as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not necessarily unless it were a direct strike
> The oceans provide a protective shield
> 
> It is easier to build and supply a community under water. You also have access to water and oxygen which may be scarce on a distant planet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any asteroid strike that results in a end of life as we know it scenario, will be a direct hit.  The oceans will provide no protection in the event of an asteroid strike.  Absolutely none.
Click to expand...

Sure they would
On the opposite end of the earth


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is singular.  One big ass rock will end civilization, and possibly life on this planet at some time in its future unless we do something to prevent that.  In all of this worlds history, we are the only creatures capable of preventing an asteroid strike.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the event of a global cataclism, we are better suited to colonize the ocean floor than some distant planet
> 
> Think of the logistics of bringing supplies to build a colony a couple of hundred feet underwater vs light years away
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think of the logistics of trying to live underwater.  That is an environment that is every bit as harsh as space.  An asteroid strike of the size like that which wiped out the dinosaurs, would make the oceans uninhabitable as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not necessarily unless it were a direct strike
> The oceans provide a protective shield
> 
> It is easier to build and supply a community under water. You also have access to water and oxygen which may be scarce on a distant planet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any asteroid strike that results in a end of life as we know it scenario, will be a direct hit.  The oceans will provide no protection in the event of an asteroid strike.  Absolutely none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure they would
> On the opposite end of the earth
Click to expand...









Wow, you really are anti science.  I suggest you actually do some research before you respond.  You are remarkably ignorant.


----------



## rightwinger

Flopper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explore with robots
> 
> They are easier to feed and we don’t care if they are destroyed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That ain’t gonna cut it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been cutting it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are some things that drones can do very well.  But, ultimately, they are a developmental dead end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hardly a dead end
> With artificial intelligence they could function on a distant planet
> 
> Problem with humans is it costs so much to sustain them and we can’t just let them die
> 
> R2D2 is a better solution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In my opinion, the best solution is unnamed probes which can do most of what humans can do and in fact can go where no man can go.
> 
> However, there are limitations to unmanned vehicles. Humans can adapt to changing situations and repair malfunctions, probes can only execute their programming.  As AI improves, unmanned probes will be able to handle more malfunctions but we are a long way from building machines with the flexibility of humans.  Also, there is always the possibility of discovery of the totally unexpected which machines will not be programmed to handle since the the event is unexpected.
> 
> While space probes conduct good science and undertake useful missions, they do not capture the human imagination or ignite the same kind of excitement that a human physically exploring space does.  Today, an manned mission is about as exciting to the public as a going out of business sale at a furniture company.  Without public interest and support raising the money for space exploration can be almost impossible.
Click to expand...

The public grew tired of moon landings. That is why the final ones were cancelled

We should explore space because there is a useful reason to do so. Not to amuse the public


----------



## rightwinger

westwall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the event of a global cataclism, we are better suited to colonize the ocean floor than some distant planet
> 
> Think of the logistics of bringing supplies to build a colony a couple of hundred feet underwater vs light years away
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think of the logistics of trying to live underwater.  That is an environment that is every bit as harsh as space.  An asteroid strike of the size like that which wiped out the dinosaurs, would make the oceans uninhabitable as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not necessarily unless it were a direct strike
> The oceans provide a protective shield
> 
> It is easier to build and supply a community under water. You also have access to water and oxygen which may be scarce on a distant planet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any asteroid strike that results in a end of life as we know it scenario, will be a direct hit.  The oceans will provide no protection in the event of an asteroid strike.  Absolutely none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure they would
> On the opposite end of the earth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really are anti science.  I suggest you actually do some research before you respond.  You are remarkably ignorant.
Click to expand...

Nice comeback

Shows you are losing the argument. How do you account for the fluidity of water?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

rightwinger said:


> How do you account for the fluidity of water?


 Water transmits energy waves quite well. And the more shallow your settlement, the worse you will get pounded, as the waves compress longitudinally when they reach shallower waters. Also, if your settlememt is fixed to the seabed, you will have to contend with the earthquakes.


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think of the logistics of trying to live underwater.  That is an environment that is every bit as harsh as space.  An asteroid strike of the size like that which wiped out the dinosaurs, would make the oceans uninhabitable as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily unless it were a direct strike
> The oceans provide a protective shield
> 
> It is easier to build and supply a community under water. You also have access to water and oxygen which may be scarce on a distant planet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any asteroid strike that results in a end of life as we know it scenario, will be a direct hit.  The oceans will provide no protection in the event of an asteroid strike.  Absolutely none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure they would
> On the opposite end of the earth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really are anti science.  I suggest you actually do some research before you respond.  You are remarkably ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice comeback
> 
> Shows you are losing the argument. How do you account for the fluidity of water?
Click to expand...







You're not helping yourself, dude.  Fluidity is not a concern when an asteroid impacts at 55 kilometers per second.  BTW, if it hits land that is waaaaay the hell better than if it hits in the ocean.

Why?


----------



## Votto

52ndStreet said:


> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!



Nonsense!

Socialists just know that there is other life forms out there, and when they find them, they will infiltrate them, subvert them, and make them pay for real universal health care coverage.

No wonder they hide from us and kidnap us and stick things up our arse.

I suppose I would to considering the entire globe leans left.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Votto said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense!
> 
> Socialists just know that there is other life forms out there, and when they find them, they will infiltrate them, subvert them, and make them pay for real universal health care coverage.
Click to expand...

Good grief, are 500 trillion political threads not enough for you people?  Come on...


----------



## ABikerSailor

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe he was referring to the Firstborn. I'm sure to humans they would appear to be God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't read the book, so Clarke may have meant the monolith to be different.  Did he bring up the Firstborn?  Is the book worth reading?
> 
> However, the director and producer Stanley Kubrick did not follow the book, and I think took it in another direction.  While the monolith could be an object planted by extraterrestrial intelligent beings, it could represent human's relationship with God.  In this case, it follows an evolutionary God who created chimps and they learned to use tools.  He had them develop, thrive and become all they could be.  There was that spectacular cut where we are shown they had reached the point of conquering outer space and bring in the world of high technology.  At the end, humans evolved into a more advanced version of themselves as a star child.  Well, it's one interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always thought that part of the point was that we couldnt distinguish between gods and aliens.
> 
> Q: "Is it the work of gods, or aliens?"
> 
> A: "Whats the difference?"
Click to expand...


As Arthur C. Clarke himself said..................

*Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Clarke's First Law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.*



If aliens landed on Earth today, we would more than likely regard them as "god like" because they can travel between the stars, we can't.  They probably also have some other tech that would simply blow the minds of both our top scientists AND top science fiction writers.


----------



## petro

Mindful said:


> I've just watched Kubrick's  A Space Odyssey. Millions of miles from Earth on the Jupiter mission, and still not at the destination!
> 
> I didn't understand the ending. Having read the book some years ago to understand the ending, and then having understood it, I've forgotten what I understood. So I'm back to square one.


There are several more books also. 2010 which was made into a movie. 2061 and now I guess 3001 which I haven't read.
The basic premise is that humanity is and always was being guided by a higher intelligence. The monolith appears at every major evolutionary event for humankind.


----------



## rightwinger

westwall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily unless it were a direct strike
> The oceans provide a protective shield
> 
> It is easier to build and supply a community under water. You also have access to water and oxygen which may be scarce on a distant planet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any asteroid strike that results in a end of life as we know it scenario, will be a direct hit.  The oceans will provide no protection in the event of an asteroid strike.  Absolutely none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure they would
> On the opposite end of the earth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really are anti science.  I suggest you actually do some research before you respond.  You are remarkably ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice comeback
> 
> Shows you are losing the argument. How do you account for the fluidity of water?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not helping yourself, dude.  Fluidity is not a concern when an asteroid impacts at 55 kilometers per second.  BTW, if it hits land that is waaaaay the hell better than if it hits in the ocean.
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...


A colony hundreds of feet down in the ocean is survivable 
A colony light years away is much more vulnerable to natural disaster


----------



## ABikerSailor

rightwinger said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any asteroid strike that results in a end of life as we know it scenario, will be a direct hit.  The oceans will provide no protection in the event of an asteroid strike.  Absolutely none.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they would
> On the opposite end of the earth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really are anti science.  I suggest you actually do some research before you respond.  You are remarkably ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice comeback
> 
> Shows you are losing the argument. How do you account for the fluidity of water?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not helping yourself, dude.  Fluidity is not a concern when an asteroid impacts at 55 kilometers per second.  BTW, if it hits land that is waaaaay the hell better than if it hits in the ocean.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A colony hundreds of feet down in the ocean is survivable
> A colony light years away is much more vulnerable to natural disaster
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, you would have to work out the pressure equations, as well as construct something that would be stronger than most things known today, because pressure increases with depth.

https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/eoi/nemo1998/education/pressure.html

*If you are at sea level, each square inch of your surface is subjected to a force of 14.6 pounds. The pressure increases about one atmosphere for every 10 meters of water depth. At a depth of 5,000 meters the pressure will be approximately 500 atmospheres or 500 times greater than the pressure at sea level.*


----------



## Flopper

ABikerSailor said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe he was referring to the Firstborn. I'm sure to humans they would appear to be God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't read the book, so Clarke may have meant the monolith to be different.  Did he bring up the Firstborn?  Is the book worth reading?
> 
> However, the director and producer Stanley Kubrick did not follow the book, and I think took it in another direction.  While the monolith could be an object planted by extraterrestrial intelligent beings, it could represent human's relationship with God.  In this case, it follows an evolutionary God who created chimps and they learned to use tools.  He had them develop, thrive and become all they could be.  There was that spectacular cut where we are shown they had reached the point of conquering outer space and bring in the world of high technology.  At the end, humans evolved into a more advanced version of themselves as a star child.  Well, it's one interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always thought that part of the point was that we couldnt distinguish between gods and aliens.
> 
> Q: "Is it the work of gods, or aliens?"
> 
> A: "Whats the difference?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As Arthur C. Clarke himself said..................
> 
> *Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Clarke's First Law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.*
> 
> 
> 
> If aliens landed on Earth today, we would more than likely regard them as "god like" because they can travel between the stars, we can't.  They probably also have some other tech that would simply blow the minds of both our top scientists AND top science fiction writers.
Click to expand...

We would do to them exactly what we do to humans that aren't white, Christian, and speak English.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Flopper said:


> We would do to them exactly what we do to humans that aren't white, Christian, and speak English.


I imagine history would look a bit different, if the american Indians had disintegrators.


----------



## rightwinger

ABikerSailor said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they would
> On the opposite end of the earth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really are anti science.  I suggest you actually do some research before you respond.  You are remarkably ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice comeback
> 
> Shows you are losing the argument. How do you account for the fluidity of water?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not helping yourself, dude.  Fluidity is not a concern when an asteroid impacts at 55 kilometers per second.  BTW, if it hits land that is waaaaay the hell better than if it hits in the ocean.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A colony hundreds of feet down in the ocean is survivable
> A colony light years away is much more vulnerable to natural disaster
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, you would have to work out the pressure equations, as well as construct something that would be stronger than most things known today, because pressure increases with depth.
> 
> https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/eoi/nemo1998/education/pressure.html
> 
> *If you are at sea level, each square inch of your surface is subjected to a force of 14.6 pounds. The pressure increases about one atmosphere for every 10 meters of water depth. At a depth of 5,000 meters the pressure will be approximately 500 atmospheres or 500 times greater than the pressure at sea level.*
Click to expand...


Or else survive on an unreachable planet with wild swings in temperature and weather 

At least the ocean is a known


----------



## ABikerSailor

Flopper said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe he was referring to the Firstborn. I'm sure to humans they would appear to be God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't read the book, so Clarke may have meant the monolith to be different.  Did he bring up the Firstborn?  Is the book worth reading?
> 
> However, the director and producer Stanley Kubrick did not follow the book, and I think took it in another direction.  While the monolith could be an object planted by extraterrestrial intelligent beings, it could represent human's relationship with God.  In this case, it follows an evolutionary God who created chimps and they learned to use tools.  He had them develop, thrive and become all they could be.  There was that spectacular cut where we are shown they had reached the point of conquering outer space and bring in the world of high technology.  At the end, humans evolved into a more advanced version of themselves as a star child.  Well, it's one interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always thought that part of the point was that we couldnt distinguish between gods and aliens.
> 
> Q: "Is it the work of gods, or aliens?"
> 
> A: "Whats the difference?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As Arthur C. Clarke himself said..................
> 
> *Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Clarke's First Law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.*
> 
> 
> 
> If aliens landed on Earth today, we would more than likely regard them as "god like" because they can travel between the stars, we can't.  They probably also have some other tech that would simply blow the minds of both our top scientists AND top science fiction writers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We would do to them exactly what we do to humans that aren't white, Christian, and speak English.
Click to expand...


That would be a VERY bad idea.  If they have the technology to make it across the stars, they will have a lot of other tech just as advanced, and if it's for defense or warfare, the human race would be screwed.  Think about what happened when Cortez (advanced race) landed in Central America.  He immediately enslaved the population and had them mine silver for him.   And, because Cortez was more advanced than the Aztecs and Inca, they were swallowed up and are no more.


----------



## Flopper

ABikerSailor said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe he was referring to the Firstborn. I'm sure to humans they would appear to be God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't read the book, so Clarke may have meant the monolith to be different.  Did he bring up the Firstborn?  Is the book worth reading?
> 
> However, the director and producer Stanley Kubrick did not follow the book, and I think took it in another direction.  While the monolith could be an object planted by extraterrestrial intelligent beings, it could represent human's relationship with God.  In this case, it follows an evolutionary God who created chimps and they learned to use tools.  He had them develop, thrive and become all they could be.  There was that spectacular cut where we are shown they had reached the point of conquering outer space and bring in the world of high technology.  At the end, humans evolved into a more advanced version of themselves as a star child.  Well, it's one interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always thought that part of the point was that we couldnt distinguish between gods and aliens.
> 
> Q: "Is it the work of gods, or aliens?"
> 
> A: "Whats the difference?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As Arthur C. Clarke himself said..................
> 
> *Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Clarke's First Law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.*
> 
> 
> 
> If aliens landed on Earth today, we would more than likely regard them as "god like" because they can travel between the stars, we can't.  They probably also have some other tech that would simply blow the minds of both our top scientists AND top science fiction writers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We would do to them exactly what we do to humans that aren't white, Christian, and speak English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be a VERY bad idea.  If they have the technology to make it across the stars, they will have a lot of other tech just as advanced, and if it's for defense or warfare, the human race would be screwed.  Think about what happened when Cortez (advanced race) landed in Central America.  He immediately enslaved the population and had them mine silver for him.   And, because Cortez was more advanced than the Aztecs and Inca, they were swallowed up and are no more.
Click to expand...

Since we are discussing aliens, they could be so different from us, that the concepts of violence, hate, love, good, evil, or even individuality, would not even exist.  Many science fiction writers have theorized that alien beings might be so different from us, that any type understanding or even communication would be impossible.


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any asteroid strike that results in a end of life as we know it scenario, will be a direct hit.  The oceans will provide no protection in the event of an asteroid strike.  Absolutely none.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they would
> On the opposite end of the earth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really are anti science.  I suggest you actually do some research before you respond.  You are remarkably ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice comeback
> 
> Shows you are losing the argument. How do you account for the fluidity of water?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not helping yourself, dude.  Fluidity is not a concern when an asteroid impacts at 55 kilometers per second.  BTW, if it hits land that is waaaaay the hell better than if it hits in the ocean.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A colony hundreds of feet down in the ocean is survivable
> A colony light years away is much more vulnerable to natural disaster
Click to expand...








No, it ain't.  In the event of a asteroid strike the resulting earthquakes will destroy your happy little underwater colony.  You forget, the sea floor is porridge.  It will liquify and the next thing you will know is you are buried under a dozen feet of muck, with no way to dig yourself out.


----------



## westwall

Flopper said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't read the book, so Clarke may have meant the monolith to be different.  Did he bring up the Firstborn?  Is the book worth reading?
> 
> However, the director and producer Stanley Kubrick did not follow the book, and I think took it in another direction.  While the monolith could be an object planted by extraterrestrial intelligent beings, it could represent human's relationship with God.  In this case, it follows an evolutionary God who created chimps and they learned to use tools.  He had them develop, thrive and become all they could be.  There was that spectacular cut where we are shown they had reached the point of conquering outer space and bring in the world of high technology.  At the end, humans evolved into a more advanced version of themselves as a star child.  Well, it's one interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> I always thought that part of the point was that we couldnt distinguish between gods and aliens.
> 
> Q: "Is it the work of gods, or aliens?"
> 
> A: "Whats the difference?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As Arthur C. Clarke himself said..................
> 
> *Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Clarke's First Law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.*
> 
> 
> 
> If aliens landed on Earth today, we would more than likely regard them as "god like" because they can travel between the stars, we can't.  They probably also have some other tech that would simply blow the minds of both our top scientists AND top science fiction writers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We would do to them exactly what we do to humans that aren't white, Christian, and speak English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be a VERY bad idea.  If they have the technology to make it across the stars, they will have a lot of other tech just as advanced, and if it's for defense or warfare, the human race would be screwed.  Think about what happened when Cortez (advanced race) landed in Central America.  He immediately enslaved the population and had them mine silver for him.   And, because Cortez was more advanced than the Aztecs and Inca, they were swallowed up and are no more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since we are discussing aliens, they could be so different from us, that the concepts of violence, hate, love, good, evil, or even individuality, would not even exist.  Many science fiction writers have theorized that alien beings might be so different from us, that any type understanding or even communication would be impossible.
Click to expand...






And they would be wrong.  Any culture, capable of traversing the vast reaches of space, will be able to understand other cultures.  It may take a while, but it would happen without fail.


----------



## Weatherman2020

52ndStreet said:


> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!


The electronics you’re using is made possible by men going into space.


----------



## westwall

ABikerSailor said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they would
> On the opposite end of the earth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really are anti science.  I suggest you actually do some research before you respond.  You are remarkably ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice comeback
> 
> Shows you are losing the argument. How do you account for the fluidity of water?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not helping yourself, dude.  Fluidity is not a concern when an asteroid impacts at 55 kilometers per second.  BTW, if it hits land that is waaaaay the hell better than if it hits in the ocean.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A colony hundreds of feet down in the ocean is survivable
> A colony light years away is much more vulnerable to natural disaster
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, you would have to work out the pressure equations, as well as construct something that would be stronger than most things known today, because pressure increases with depth.
> 
> https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/eoi/nemo1998/education/pressure.html
> 
> *If you are at sea level, each square inch of your surface is subjected to a force of 14.6 pounds. The pressure increases about one atmosphere for every 10 meters of water depth. At a depth of 5,000 meters the pressure will be approximately 500 atmospheres or 500 times greater than the pressure at sea level.*
Click to expand...







There are far more problems.  The pressure is only one of them.


----------



## westwall

Flopper said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe he was referring to the Firstborn. I'm sure to humans they would appear to be God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't read the book, so Clarke may have meant the monolith to be different.  Did he bring up the Firstborn?  Is the book worth reading?
> 
> However, the director and producer Stanley Kubrick did not follow the book, and I think took it in another direction.  While the monolith could be an object planted by extraterrestrial intelligent beings, it could represent human's relationship with God.  In this case, it follows an evolutionary God who created chimps and they learned to use tools.  He had them develop, thrive and become all they could be.  There was that spectacular cut where we are shown they had reached the point of conquering outer space and bring in the world of high technology.  At the end, humans evolved into a more advanced version of themselves as a star child.  Well, it's one interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always thought that part of the point was that we couldnt distinguish between gods and aliens.
> 
> Q: "Is it the work of gods, or aliens?"
> 
> A: "Whats the difference?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As Arthur C. Clarke himself said..................
> 
> *Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Clarke's First Law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.*
> 
> 
> 
> If aliens landed on Earth today, we would more than likely regard them as "god like" because they can travel between the stars, we can't.  They probably also have some other tech that would simply blow the minds of both our top scientists AND top science fiction writers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We would do to them exactly what we do to humans that aren't white, Christian, and speak English.
Click to expand...







No, they would squash us like the ants we are to them.  Hopefully they will take pity on us and leave us alone so we can develop more.


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really are anti science.  I suggest you actually do some research before you respond.  You are remarkably ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice comeback
> 
> Shows you are losing the argument. How do you account for the fluidity of water?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not helping yourself, dude.  Fluidity is not a concern when an asteroid impacts at 55 kilometers per second.  BTW, if it hits land that is waaaaay the hell better than if it hits in the ocean.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A colony hundreds of feet down in the ocean is survivable
> A colony light years away is much more vulnerable to natural disaster
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, you would have to work out the pressure equations, as well as construct something that would be stronger than most things known today, because pressure increases with depth.
> 
> https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/eoi/nemo1998/education/pressure.html
> 
> *If you are at sea level, each square inch of your surface is subjected to a force of 14.6 pounds. The pressure increases about one atmosphere for every 10 meters of water depth. At a depth of 5,000 meters the pressure will be approximately 500 atmospheres or 500 times greater than the pressure at sea level.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or else survive on an unreachable planet with wild swings in temperature and weather
> 
> At least the ocean is a known
Click to expand...







Not really.  If it were known we would already be down there.  Lots of wealth in the oceans if you can only extract it.

The fact that we haven't yet proves the falsity of your claims.


----------



## 007

Don't know if this has been mentioned in all the posts so far, but there is a study going on of organisms that are resilient to the radiation of space. If scientists could splice the genes of those organisms with humans, we wouldn't have to worry about space radiation.


----------



## 007

We are only bound to earth by our own limitations in imagination. Necessity is the mother of invention. Where there is a will, there is a way. 

We will venture into space, and we'll do it and not have to worry about space radiation... someday.


----------



## 007

Our sun is collapsing. Someday it will finally implode and then explode, and will wipe out our galaxy. Earth will be gone. We have to be long gone before that. The search for XO planets in the sweet zone is fast and furious at this very moment, and the discovery of those planets is happening as we speak.

Now we just have to have our government reveal the anti matter, anti gravity drive UFO technology to the world so we can all get to work reverse engineering it so we can get off this planet. But we can't travel through space even at light space. Space has to be folded. Time and space has to be warped. Why do you think even Star Trek calls the drive engines on the Enterprise WARP DRIVE? It's got nothing to do with speed. They are warping space.


----------



## rightwinger

westwall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they would
> On the opposite end of the earth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really are anti science.  I suggest you actually do some research before you respond.  You are remarkably ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice comeback
> 
> Shows you are losing the argument. How do you account for the fluidity of water?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not helping yourself, dude.  Fluidity is not a concern when an asteroid impacts at 55 kilometers per second.  BTW, if it hits land that is waaaaay the hell better than if it hits in the ocean.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A colony hundreds of feet down in the ocean is survivable
> A colony light years away is much more vulnerable to natural disaster
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it ain't.  In the event of a asteroid strike the resulting earthquakes will destroy your happy little underwater colony.  You forget, the sea floor is porridge.  It will liquify and the next thing you will know is you are buried under a dozen feet of muck, with no way to dig yourself out.
Click to expand...


You don’t need to dig yourself out
Colonies can be made all over the earth
Some would be affected by the strike, others would not


----------



## rightwinger

007 said:


> We are only bound to earth by our own limitations in imagination. Necessity is the mother of invention. Where there is a will, there is a way.
> 
> We will venture into space, and we'll do it and not have to worry about space radiation... someday.


Sounds like the opening to Star Trek


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

007 said:


> Our sun is collapsing. Someday it will finally implode and then explode, and will wipe out our galaxy. Earth will be gone. We have to be long gone before that. The search for XO planets in the sweet zone is fast and furious at this very moment, and the discovery of those planets is happening as we speak.
> 
> Now we just have to have our government reveal the anti matter, anti gravity drive UFO technology to the world so we can all get to work reverse engineering it so we can get off this planet. But we can't travel through space even at light space. Space has to be folded. Time and space has to be warped. Why do you think even Star Trek calls the drive engines on the Enterprise WARP DRIVE? It's got nothing to do with speed. They are warping space.


Haha...really?


----------



## 22lcidw

petro said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've just watched Kubrick's  A Space Odyssey. Millions of miles from Earth on the Jupiter mission, and still not at the destination!
> 
> I didn't understand the ending. Having read the book some years ago to understand the ending, and then having understood it, I've forgotten what I understood. So I'm back to square one.
> 
> 
> 
> There are several more books also. 2010 which was made into a movie. 2061 and now I guess 3001 which I haven't read.
> The basic premise is that humanity is and always was being guided by a higher intelligence. The monolith appears at every major evolutionary event for humankind.
Click to expand...

I believed 2010 was a much better movie then 2001. 2001 was beautiful in picture but many people did not understand it. Endless long arcs of photography in most parts of the move made it boring.  The first half hour or so was primitive humans beating on each other until they went nuts seeing the bar of life. The ending scenes of 2010 showed the much more evolved humans getting ready to blow each other up until the bar of life shows up. But it was much more action packed.


----------



## rightwinger

22lcidw said:


> petro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've just watched Kubrick's  A Space Odyssey. Millions of miles from Earth on the Jupiter mission, and still not at the destination!
> 
> I didn't understand the ending. Having read the book some years ago to understand the ending, and then having understood it, I've forgotten what I understood. So I'm back to square one.
> 
> 
> 
> There are several more books also. 2010 which was made into a movie. 2061 and now I guess 3001 which I haven't read.
> The basic premise is that humanity is and always was being guided by a higher intelligence. The monolith appears at every major evolutionary event for humankind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believed 2010 was a much better movie then 2001. 2001 was beautiful in picture but many people did not understand it. Endless long arcs of photography in most parts of the move made it boring.  The first half hour or so was primitive humans beating on each other until they went nuts seeing the bar of life. The ending scenes of 2010 showed the much more evolved humans getting ready to blow each other up until the bar of life shows up. But it was much more action packed.
Click to expand...

2001 was overrated, overhyped nonsense


----------



## Flopper

westwall said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always thought that part of the point was that we couldnt distinguish between gods and aliens.
> 
> Q: "Is it the work of gods, or aliens?"
> 
> A: "Whats the difference?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Arthur C. Clarke himself said..................
> 
> *Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Clarke's First Law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.*
> 
> 
> 
> If aliens landed on Earth today, we would more than likely regard them as "god like" because they can travel between the stars, we can't.  They probably also have some other tech that would simply blow the minds of both our top scientists AND top science fiction writers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We would do to them exactly what we do to humans that aren't white, Christian, and speak English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be a VERY bad idea.  If they have the technology to make it across the stars, they will have a lot of other tech just as advanced, and if it's for defense or warfare, the human race would be screwed.  Think about what happened when Cortez (advanced race) landed in Central America.  He immediately enslaved the population and had them mine silver for him.   And, because Cortez was more advanced than the Aztecs and Inca, they were swallowed up and are no more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since we are discussing aliens, they could be so different from us, that the concepts of violence, hate, love, good, evil, or even individuality, would not even exist.  Many science fiction writers have theorized that alien beings might be so different from us, that any type understanding or even communication would be impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they would be wrong.  Any culture, capable of traversing the vast reaches of space, will be able to understand other cultures.  It may take a while, but it would happen without fail.
Click to expand...

Your conclusions are based on human culture.  Humans are naturally curious which helps us survive and advance.   An alien culture may well have reached our level of advancement many millions of years ago.  They have advanced so far that they travel the universe for reasons other than to explore and investigate.  They have no curiosity about other cultures and thus no drive to understand them.  In other words, they believe they have reached what they consider the pinnacle of knowledge.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe he was referring to the Firstborn. I'm sure to humans they would appear to be God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't read the book, so Clarke may have meant the monolith to be different.  Did he bring up the Firstborn?  Is the book worth reading?
> 
> However, the director and producer Stanley Kubrick did not follow the book, and I think took it in another direction.  While the monolith could be an object planted by extraterrestrial intelligent beings, it could represent human's relationship with God.  In this case, it follows an evolutionary God who created chimps and they learned to use tools.  He had them develop, thrive and become all they could be.  There was that spectacular cut where we are shown they had reached the point of conquering outer space and bring in the world of high technology.  At the end, humans evolved into a more advanced version of themselves as a star child.  Well, it's one interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always thought that part of the point was that we couldnt distinguish between gods and aliens.
> 
> Q: "Is it the work of gods, or aliens?"
> 
> A: "Whats the difference?"
Click to expand...


Who said that -- Clarke or Kubrik?

We know there is evidence for one while the ones who should have showed up by now is nowhere to be found.


----------



## james bond

rightwinger said:


> We should explore space because there is a useful reason to do so. Not to amuse the public



We already know about space and that it's harsh.  It even killed that alien that busts out of your chest.

We also have space station hotels planned, so what's left is Europa or Titan for possible colonization.  I suppose they picked Mars because everyone knows about it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Who said that -- Clarke or Kubrik?


Neither...it was a summary of my point.

Spare me your claims of evidence of magical sky daddies. Go pollute the religion section with that magical nonsense. This is the science section.


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said that -- Clarke or Kubrik?
> 
> 
> 
> Neither...it was a summary of my point.
> 
> Spare me your claims of evidence of magical sky daddies. Go pollute the religion section with that magical nonsense. This is the science section.
Click to expand...

funny hearing you complain about magical and talking about science when you believe in evolution which is based on pure magic lacking in any science,,,
you think we all came from a rock,,,


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said that -- Clarke or Kubrik?
> 
> 
> 
> Neither...it was a summary of my point.
> 
> Spare me your claims of evidence of magical sky daddies. Go pollute the religion section with that magical nonsense. This is the science section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> funny hearing you complain about magical and talking about science when you believe in evolution which is based on pure magic lacking in any science,,,
> you think we all came from a rock,,,
Click to expand...

^^

Attention begging troll desperate to elicit responses....


----------



## james bond

rightwinger said:


> A colony hundreds of feet down in the ocean is survivable
> A colony light years away is much more vulnerable to natural disaster



I'd take the ocean colony.  You probably would not be able to come back if something wrong happens with traveling light years away.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Spare me your claims of evidence of magical sky daddies. Go pollute the religion section with that magical nonsense. This is the science section.



Your science ends up as science fiction haha.  Your aliens are still nowhere to be found.  Neither are the abiogenesis life cells formed under a supervolcano.  No ape has become bipedal.  No chicken has grown dino feet.


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said that -- Clarke or Kubrik?
> 
> 
> 
> Neither...it was a summary of my point.
> 
> Spare me your claims of evidence of magical sky daddies. Go pollute the religion section with that magical nonsense. This is the science section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> funny hearing you complain about magical and talking about science when you believe in evolution which is based on pure magic lacking in any science,,,
> you think we all came from a rock,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^
> 
> Attention begging troll desperate to elicit responses....
Click to expand...

maybe,,,but you still think we all came from a rock,,,

whats more magical than that???


I AM ROCKMAN!!!!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Your aliens are still nowhere to be found.


What in the world are you babbling about? Play with your little strawman dollies somewhere else. You're taking a dump in the thread.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

So, anyhoo, we know all life here evolved on earth from a common, single celled ancestor. Some peole like to propose that the planet was seeded with life, or with DNA. But there is no good reason to believe that. That seed would have to have formed via abiogenesis or selection elsewhere in the first place. And all the necessary constituents were present here on earth. Since abiogenesis is already a foregone conclusion, insiting that it had to happen elsewhere is quite unnecessary.


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So, anyhoo, we know all life here evolved on earth from a common, single celled ancestor. Some peole like to propose that the planet was seeded with life, or with DNA. But there is no good reason to believe that. That seed would have to have formed via abiogenesis or selection elsewhere in the first place. And all the necessary constituents were present here on earth. Since abiogenesis is already a foregone conclusion, insiting that it had to happen elsewhere is quite unnecessary.


and how do we know that???

the first rule of science is it has to be observed,,,and last I heard there are no people that are billions of yrs old that saw this happen


so your belief is based on magic or just make believe,,,and sure isnt science,,,

just face it,,,your belief is no different than any other religion,,,


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Evolution is established fact, at this point. Anyone who doesn't know why needs to read up on that themselves. I suggest starting with a 7th grade textbook, for the introductory material.

Second, abiogenesis is a foregone conclusion. No rational, evidence based thinker would propose magic in its place, just as we wouldn't propose magic in place of star formation or fission.

Where once there was no star,there is now a star. What connects the two states is star formation.

Where once there was just an atom, there is now an atom and an alpha particle. What connects the two states is fission.

Where once there was no life,now there is life. What connects the two states is abiogenesis.

That's an academic matter not up for debate. Proposing magic takes one outside the realm of science and determinism, and, indeed, outside the realm of logic and evidence, as determinism and causality have been rejected by the one proposing magic.


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Evolution is established fact, at this point. Anyone who doesn't know why needs to read up on that themselves. I suggest starting with a 7th grade textbook, for the introductory material.
> 
> Second, abiogenesis is a foregone conclusion. No rational, evidence based thinker would propose magic in its place, just as we wouldn't propose magic in place of star formation or fission.
> 
> Where once there was no star,there is now a star. What connects the two states is star formation.
> 
> Where once there was just an atom, there is now an atom and an alpha partocle. What connects the two states is fission.
> 
> Where once there was no life,now there is life. What connects the two states is abiogenesis.
> 
> That's an academic matter not up for debate. Proposing magic takes one outside the realm of science and determinism, and, indeed, outside the realm of logic and evidence, as determinism and causality have been rejected.






if its established fact that means theres proof,,,

so where the proof???


what was a human before he became humans???


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

So, abiogenesis happened. Can anyone make a sound argument that it only happened once and will only happen once in the history of our universe? Of course not.

Only twice? Just as impossible to argue.

So we are left to accept that it almost certainly happened and will happen many, many times in our universe, despite our egocentric religious history to the contrary.

We call this, "Learning."


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So, abiogenesis happened. Can anyone make a sound argument that it only happened once and will only happen once in the history of our universe? Of course not.
> 
> Only twice? Just as impossible to argue.
> 
> So we are left to accept that it almost certainly happened and will happen many, many times in our universe. Despite our egocentric religious history to the contrary.
> 
> We call this, "Learning."


yeah learning magic,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So, abiogenesis happened. Can anyone make a sound argument that it only happened once and will only happen once in the history of our universe? Of course not.
> 
> Only twice? Just as impossible to argue.
> 
> So we are left to accept that it almost certainly happened and will happen many, many times in our universe, despite our egocentric religious history to the contrary.
> 
> We call this, "Learning."


ya know FWI if you could just show us what humans were before we became humans would go a long way towards changing my mind,,,

did we walk out of the ocean as humans or were we birthed by something else????


if its a proven fact then this latest thing should be easy to show us


----------



## rightwinger

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, anyhoo, we know all life here evolved on earth from a common, single celled ancestor. Some peole like to propose that the planet was seeded with life, or with DNA. But there is no good reason to believe that. That seed would have to have formed via abiogenesis or selection elsewhere in the first place. And all the necessary constituents were present here on earth. Since abiogenesis is already a foregone conclusion, insiting that it had to happen elsewhere is quite unnecessary.
> 
> 
> 
> and how do we know that???
> 
> the first rule of science is it has to be observed,,,and last I heard there are no people that are billions of yrs old that saw this happen
> 
> 
> so your belief is based on magic or just make believe,,,and sure isnt science,,,
> 
> just face it,,,your belief is no different than any other religion,,,
Click to expand...


Link

Where is the first rule of science that it has to be observed?


----------



## progressive hunter

rightwinger said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, anyhoo, we know all life here evolved on earth from a common, single celled ancestor. Some peole like to propose that the planet was seeded with life, or with DNA. But there is no good reason to believe that. That seed would have to have formed via abiogenesis or selection elsewhere in the first place. And all the necessary constituents were present here on earth. Since abiogenesis is already a foregone conclusion, insiting that it had to happen elsewhere is quite unnecessary.
> 
> 
> 
> and how do we know that???
> 
> the first rule of science is it has to be observed,,,and last I heard there are no people that are billions of yrs old that saw this happen
> 
> 
> so your belief is based on magic or just make believe,,,and sure isnt science,,,
> 
> just face it,,,your belief is no different than any other religion,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link
> 
> Where is the first rule of science that it has to be observed?
Click to expand...




https://explorable.com/definition-of-science

if you first cant observe it then you cant study it


----------



## Mindful

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe he was referring to the Firstborn. I'm sure to humans they would appear to be God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't read the book, so Clarke may have meant the monolith to be different.  Did he bring up the Firstborn?  Is the book worth reading?
> 
> However, the director and producer Stanley Kubrick did not follow the book, and I think took it in another direction.  While the monolith could be an object planted by extraterrestrial intelligent beings, it could represent human's relationship with God.  In this case, it follows an evolutionary God who created chimps and they learned to use tools.  He had them develop, thrive and become all they could be.  There was that spectacular cut where we are shown they had reached the point of conquering outer space and bring in the world of high technology.  At the end, humans evolved into a more advanced version of themselves as a star child.  Well, it's one interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always thought that part of the point was that we couldnt distinguish between gods and aliens.
> 
> Q: "Is it the work of gods, or aliens?"
> 
> A: "Whats the difference?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said that -- Clarke or Kubrik?
> 
> We know there is evidence for one while the ones who should have showed up by now is nowhere to be found.
Click to expand...


Maybe they have. But we can't see them, due to the limitations of our puny brains.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

rightwinger said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, anyhoo, we know all life here evolved on earth from a common, single celled ancestor. Some peole like to propose that the planet was seeded with life, or with DNA. But there is no good reason to believe that. That seed would have to have formed via abiogenesis or selection elsewhere in the first place. And all the necessary constituents were present here on earth. Since abiogenesis is already a foregone conclusion, insiting that it had to happen elsewhere is quite unnecessary.
> 
> 
> 
> and how do we know that???
> 
> the first rule of science is it has to be observed,,,and last I heard there are no people that are billions of yrs old that saw this happen
> 
> 
> so your belief is based on magic or just make believe,,,and sure isnt science,,,
> 
> just face it,,,your belief is no different than any other religion,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link
> 
> Where is the first rule of science that it has to be observed?
Click to expand...

We've never seen a star form. We have never watched an alpha particle leave an atomic nucleus. We have never even seen an electron. We have never seen an underground magma pocket. We have never seen the iron cores of the Earth or the Moon.

Some quacks like to insist that, if we haven't watched an event unfold with our human eyes, then we cannot find good basis to know it happened. Of course this is utter nonsense, and we would still be trying to figure out what causes syphilis, were this the case: Demons, or god's wrath? Or witches?

Just think if murderers could use, in their defense, the idea put forward by these quacks. "You can't PROVE my DNA was not deposited at the crime scene or even at your lab by magical fairies!"

Can you imagine them as kids? "Son, I told you no more chocolate, yet there you are with chocolate on your face." "Prove a magical fairy didnt put it there! Prove it has not always been there! You didn't see me eat chocolate!"  ....  Haha...total nuttery....

This quackery is a stupid talking point put forth by young earth creationists and is reserved only for the science that contradicts their strident dogma. They don't seem to mind the known half lifes of isotopes when they need radiation therapy for cancer; but use that knowledge to determine a fossil is 60 million years old, and suddenly it's time to pull out the "you dont know, because you weren't THERE, man!!!" argument.

An evolutionary microbiologist determines which strain of a particular bacteria is likely infecting their loved one, and they seize on the knowledge to help their loved one. Remind them that this knowledge was determined by assessing 100s of 1000s of years of evolution of the species, and they will bring out the fairies and sky daddies again.

Use our knowledge of mitochondrial DNA to find better organ donor matches, and the quacks are eternally grateful for saving the lives of their loved ones. Use that same knowledge to determine that two populations of a species have been separated for 1,000,000 years, and here come the  sky daddies and the "you weren't there!" nonsense.

And abiogenesis? Their heads explode. Apparently, god can do anything and everything...but he becomes Meatloaf, when it comes to abiogenesis. "But I won't do that!" Funny thing is, abiogenesis is what the bible describes. Life, from "not life". So apparently, god could and would "do that". But no, he wouldn't. Or wait, yes he would. Intellectual fumduckery....


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, anyhoo, we know all life here evolved on earth from a common, single celled ancestor. Some peole like to propose that the planet was seeded with life, or with DNA. But there is no good reason to believe that. That seed would have to have formed via abiogenesis or selection elsewhere in the first place. And all the necessary constituents were present here on earth. Since abiogenesis is already a foregone conclusion, insiting that it had to happen elsewhere is quite unnecessary.
> 
> 
> 
> and how do we know that???
> 
> the first rule of science is it has to be observed,,,and last I heard there are no people that are billions of yrs old that saw this happen
> 
> 
> so your belief is based on magic or just make believe,,,and sure isnt science,,,
> 
> just face it,,,your belief is no different than any other religion,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link
> 
> Where is the first rule of science that it has to be observed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've never seen a star form. We have never watched an alpha particle leave an atomic nucleus. We have never even seen an electron. We have never seen an underground magma pocket. We have never seen the iron cores of the Earth or the Moon.
> 
> Some quacks like to insist that, if we haven't watched an event unfold with our human eyes, then we cannot find good basis to know it happened. Of course this is utter nonsense, and we would still be trying to figure out what causes syphilis, were this the case: Demons, or god's wrath? Or witches?
> 
> Just think if murderers could use, in their defense, the idea put forward by these quacks. "You can't PROVE my DNA was not deposited at the crime scene or even at your lab by magical fairies!"
> 
> Can you imagine them as kids? "Son, I told you no more chocolate, yet there you are with chocolate on your face." "Prove a magical fairy didnt put it there! Prove it has not always been there! You didn't see me eat chocolate!"  ....  Haha...total nuttery....
> 
> This quackery is a stupid talking point put forth by young earth creationists and is reserved only for the science that contradicts their strident dogma. They don't seem to mind the known half lifes of isotopes when they need radiation therapy for cancer; but use that knowledge to determine a fossil is 60 million years old, and suddenly it's time to pull out the "you dont know, because you weren't THERE, man!!!" argument.
> 
> An evolutionary microbiologist determines which strain of a particular bacteria is likely infecting their loved one, and they seize on the knowledge to help their loved one. Remind them that this knowledge was determined by assessing 100s of 1000s of years of evolution of the species, and they will bring out the fairies and sky daddies again.
> 
> Use our knowledge of mitochondrial DNA to find better organ donor matches, and the quacks are eternally grateful for saving the lives of their loved ones. Use that same knowledge to determine that two populations of a species have been separated for 1,000,000 years, and here come the  sky daddies and the "you weren't there!" nonsense.
> 
> And abiogenesis? Their heads explode. Apparently, god can do anything and everything...but he becomes Meatloaf, when it comes to abiogenesis. "Can't do that!"
Click to expand...

figured you would bail on it,,,


----------



## Flopper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So, abiogenesis happened. Can anyone make a sound argument that it only happened once and will only happen once in the history of our universe? Of course not.
> 
> Only twice? Just as impossible to argue.
> 
> So we are left to accept that it almost certainly happened and will happen many, many times in our universe, despite our egocentric religious history to the contrary.
> 
> We call this, "Learning."


A lot people seem think that the rest of the universe is much like our little corner of it because the composition of stars and planets seem to contain the same minerals and elements that are found here.  So the development of life would most likely be similar to earth.  I think that is a huge jump and not really supported by real evidence.

The only way we're going to get answers is to explore space, first with unmanned probes and as we develop new technology, manned missions, first in our solar system and then the universe.

The arguments against space travel are much the same as in the court of Queen Isabella when she commission Columbus.  The money would be better used to build warships, pay off debts, or build a new city wall.  We don't know if gold awaits us or monsters.

That's always the way it's been in exploring the unknown.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Flopper said:


> So the development of life would most likely be similar to earth.  I think that is a huge jump and not really supported by real evidence.


Well,i guess that depends on how you mean that. There is good reason to believe it would very likely be carbon based. The proportions of elements in life on earth matches perfectly, one-to-one, with the proportions of these elements in the universe. And carbon is the most versatile element known. Scientists point out that more different molecules can be put together based on carbon than those of all other elements put together.

Why even propose, for instance, silicon-based life, when carbon is available in larger quantities, requires less "effort", and can make a much more versatile set of molecules?

But,perhaps some "carbon poor" regions exist (or once existed).

But i also agree with what you are saying, in some ways. Would we even know alien life, if we saw it?

A demonstration of this is to perform the exercise of defining "life". Good luck...it's harder than it would seem....


----------



## Flopper

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, abiogenesis happened. Can anyone make a sound argument that it only happened once and will only happen once in the history of our universe? Of course not.
> 
> Only twice? Just as impossible to argue.
> 
> So we are left to accept that it almost certainly happened and will happen many, many times in our universe, despite our egocentric religious history to the contrary.
> 
> We call this, "Learning."
> 
> 
> 
> ya know FWI if you could just show us what humans were before we became humans would go a long way towards changing my mind,,,
> 
> did we walk out of the ocean as humans or were we birthed by something else????
> 
> 
> if its a proven fact then this latest thing should be easy to show us
Click to expand...

Scientific proof is an often used term of laymen but most scientists agree that there is really no such thing. Empirical sciences can furnish us with information about the world, but proofs do not occur, if by proof you mean an argument which establishes once and forever the truth of a theory.

There is certain a huge amount of evidence of evolution certainly more than a story of a supreme being creating the heavens and earth and all it's creatures. However, scientific proof, does not and can not exist.


----------



## progressive hunter

Flopper said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, abiogenesis happened. Can anyone make a sound argument that it only happened once and will only happen once in the history of our universe? Of course not.
> 
> Only twice? Just as impossible to argue.
> 
> So we are left to accept that it almost certainly happened and will happen many, many times in our universe, despite our egocentric religious history to the contrary.
> 
> We call this, "Learning."
> 
> 
> 
> ya know FWI if you could just show us what humans were before we became humans would go a long way towards changing my mind,,,
> 
> did we walk out of the ocean as humans or were we birthed by something else????
> 
> 
> if its a proven fact then this latest thing should be easy to show us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientific proof is an often used term of laymen but most scientists agree that there is really no such thing. Empirical sciences can furnish us with information about the world, but proofs do not occur, if by proof you mean an argument which establishes once and forever the truth of a theory.
> 
> There is certain a huge amount of evidence of evolution certainly more than a story of a supreme being creating the heavens and earth and all it's creatures. However, scientific proof, does not and can not exist.
Click to expand...



then they need to stop teaching it as fact,,,


----------



## westwall

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spare me your claims of evidence of magical sky daddies. Go pollute the religion section with that magical nonsense. This is the science section.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your science ends up as science fiction haha.  Your aliens are still nowhere to be found.  Neither are the abiogenesis life cells formed under a supervolcano.  No ape has become bipedal.  No chicken has grown dino feet.
Click to expand...







I guess you never heard about the life forms around black smokers.  A completely alien life form that requires no sunlight to exist.  Over 800 different species have been discovered over the 40 years since they were discovered.

For people who claim to be all "sciency" you sure don't know very much.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

To add to that:

There will always be a gap in our knowledge of anything. And just as surely there will always be opportunists who try to wedge their magical nonsense into that gap.

Could we ever be 100% certain that vaccines do not cause autism? No, not ever. Enter stage right: anti vaxxer quacks.

But there is a good litmus test that can be used to whittle away the quackery. To stick with the example:

Ask one of the anti-vaxxer quacks to present any evidence that shows a causal link between vaccines and autism. Ask them to explain a possible mechanism by which this causality occurs.

Then watch them retreat to their quack tactics, like the inverse fallacy, the gish gallop, the argument from ignorance, or the circular argument.

It seems that naysaying is a lot easier than actually explaining things. And, while quacks can pretend to be and know a lot of things, they can't pretend to be able to explain them. Because the explanations, as supported by evidence, stand for themselves and are independent of the desires and nuttery of the quacks.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

> *Humans Are not made to travel into Space. Its a waste of Money.*




It may be a waste of money, but NOT because humans are not made to travel into space.  Human anatomy is irrelevant.

Humans are not made to fly, but is commercial aviation a waste of money?

.


----------



## westwall

Flopper said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, abiogenesis happened. Can anyone make a sound argument that it only happened once and will only happen once in the history of our universe? Of course not.
> 
> Only twice? Just as impossible to argue.
> 
> So we are left to accept that it almost certainly happened and will happen many, many times in our universe, despite our egocentric religious history to the contrary.
> 
> We call this, "Learning."
> 
> 
> 
> ya know FWI if you could just show us what humans were before we became humans would go a long way towards changing my mind,,,
> 
> did we walk out of the ocean as humans or were we birthed by something else????
> 
> 
> if its a proven fact then this latest thing should be easy to show us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientific proof is an often used term of laymen but most scientists agree that there is really no such thing. Empirical sciences can furnish us with information about the world, but proofs do not occur, if by proof you mean an argument which establishes once and forever the truth of a theory.
> 
> There is certain a huge amount of evidence of evolution certainly more than a story of a supreme being creating the heavens and earth and all it's creatures. However, scientific proof, does not and can not exist.
Click to expand...






This is a correct statement.  Science is not about "truth" or "proof".  It is about observation, and trying to understand the cause and the effect, of what is observed.  Once morality, and "truth" enter into a discussion, science has left the building, and you are now engaged in a religious talk.


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, anyhoo, we know all life here evolved on earth from a common, single celled ancestor. Some peole like to propose that the planet was seeded with life, or with DNA. But there is no good reason to believe that. That seed would have to have formed via abiogenesis or selection elsewhere in the first place. And all the necessary constituents were present here on earth. Since abiogenesis is already a foregone conclusion, insiting that it had to happen elsewhere is quite unnecessary.
> 
> 
> 
> and how do we know that???
> 
> the first rule of science is it has to be observed,,,and last I heard there are no people that are billions of yrs old that saw this happen
> 
> 
> so your belief is based on magic or just make believe,,,and sure isnt science,,,
> 
> just face it,,,your belief is no different than any other religion,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link
> 
> Where is the first rule of science that it has to be observed?
Click to expand...







That is a fundamental precept of the scientific method.  Obviously, things that happened in the distant past cannot be observed, but evidence of them can be.


----------



## progressive hunter

westwall said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, abiogenesis happened. Can anyone make a sound argument that it only happened once and will only happen once in the history of our universe? Of course not.
> 
> Only twice? Just as impossible to argue.
> 
> So we are left to accept that it almost certainly happened and will happen many, many times in our universe, despite our egocentric religious history to the contrary.
> 
> We call this, "Learning."
> 
> 
> 
> ya know FWI if you could just show us what humans were before we became humans would go a long way towards changing my mind,,,
> 
> did we walk out of the ocean as humans or were we birthed by something else????
> 
> 
> if its a proven fact then this latest thing should be easy to show us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientific proof is an often used term of laymen but most scientists agree that there is really no such thing. Empirical sciences can furnish us with information about the world, but proofs do not occur, if by proof you mean an argument which establishes once and forever the truth of a theory.
> 
> There is certain a huge amount of evidence of evolution certainly more than a story of a supreme being creating the heavens and earth and all it's creatures. However, scientific proof, does not and can not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a correct statement.  Science is not about "truth" or "proof".  It is about observation, and trying to understand the cause and the effect, of what is observed.  Once morality, and "truth" enter into a discussion, science has left the building, and you are now engaged in a religious talk.
Click to expand...



that would make evolution just as much a religion,,,


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

westwall said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spare me your claims of evidence of magical sky daddies. Go pollute the religion section with that magical nonsense. This is the science section.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your science ends up as science fiction haha.  Your aliens are still nowhere to be found.  Neither are the abiogenesis life cells formed under a supervolcano.  No ape has become bipedal.  No chicken has grown dino feet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you never heard about the life forms around black smokers.  A completely alien life form that requires no sunlight to exist.  Over 800 different species have been discovered over the 40 years since they were discovered.
> 
> For people who claim to be all "sciency" you sure don't know very much.
Click to expand...

But but but....dinos don't suddenly grow chicken feet!


----------



## progressive hunter

westwall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, anyhoo, we know all life here evolved on earth from a common, single celled ancestor. Some peole like to propose that the planet was seeded with life, or with DNA. But there is no good reason to believe that. That seed would have to have formed via abiogenesis or selection elsewhere in the first place. And all the necessary constituents were present here on earth. Since abiogenesis is already a foregone conclusion, insiting that it had to happen elsewhere is quite unnecessary.
> 
> 
> 
> and how do we know that???
> 
> the first rule of science is it has to be observed,,,and last I heard there are no people that are billions of yrs old that saw this happen
> 
> 
> so your belief is based on magic or just make believe,,,and sure isnt science,,,
> 
> just face it,,,your belief is no different than any other religion,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link
> 
> Where is the first rule of science that it has to be observed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a fundamental precept of the scientific method.  Obviously, things that happened in the distant past cannot be observed, but evidence of them can be.
Click to expand...

but there is no evidence humans have ever been anything but humans,,,and so on down the food chain

where as evolution claims we are all formed from non living matter,,,which is just as magical as the sky god theory


----------



## westwall

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spare me your claims of evidence of magical sky daddies. Go pollute the religion section with that magical nonsense. This is the science section.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your science ends up as science fiction haha.  Your aliens are still nowhere to be found.  Neither are the abiogenesis life cells formed under a supervolcano.  No ape has become bipedal.  No chicken has grown dino feet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you never heard about the life forms around black smokers.  A completely alien life form that requires no sunlight to exist.  Over 800 different species have been discovered over the 40 years since they were discovered.
> 
> For people who claim to be all "sciency" you sure don't know very much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But but but....dinos don't suddenly grow chicken feet!
Click to expand...







I suggest you read the "Dinosaur Heresies" then.  Dr. Bakker (a friend BTW) was way ahead of his time.

*The dinosaur heresies : new theories unlocking the mystery of the dinosaurs and their extinction / Robert T. Bakker*

The dinosaur heresies : new theories unlocking the mystery of the dinosaurs and their extinction / Robert T. Bakker


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Please don't feed the troll porgressivehunter.  He knows he is saying very stupid things. He is just trying to hijack.


----------



## westwall

progressive hunter said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, anyhoo, we know all life here evolved on earth from a common, single celled ancestor. Some peole like to propose that the planet was seeded with life, or with DNA. But there is no good reason to believe that. That seed would have to have formed via abiogenesis or selection elsewhere in the first place. And all the necessary constituents were present here on earth. Since abiogenesis is already a foregone conclusion, insiting that it had to happen elsewhere is quite unnecessary.
> 
> 
> 
> and how do we know that???
> 
> the first rule of science is it has to be observed,,,and last I heard there are no people that are billions of yrs old that saw this happen
> 
> 
> so your belief is based on magic or just make believe,,,and sure isnt science,,,
> 
> just face it,,,your belief is no different than any other religion,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link
> 
> Where is the first rule of science that it has to be observed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a fundamental precept of the scientific method.  Obviously, things that happened in the distant past cannot be observed, but evidence of them can be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but there is no evidence humans have ever been anything but humans,,,and so on down the food chain
> 
> where as evolution claims we are all formed from non living matter,,,which is just as magical as the sky god theory
Click to expand...








Correct, there currently isn't.  And given how rare fossils are, I don't expect that there will ever be.  However the DNA evidence showing we are 98% the same as Chimps is pretty compelling real world evidence.


----------



## westwall

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Please don't feed the troll porgressivehunter.  He knows he is saying very stupid things. He is just trying to hijack.







I'm not.  We are engaged in respectful discourse that will educate both him, and others.  That's how reasonable people talk about things.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

westwall said:


> Obviously, things that happened in the distant past cannot be observed, but evidence of them can be.


What if we could fold space and end up 65 million light years away in an instant? Then we could watch the dinosaurs go extinct.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

westwall said:


> We are engaged in respectful discourse that will educate both him


No it won't. He knows the things he is saying are stupid and false. But anyhoo, now I'm feeding the troll by talking about him.


----------



## westwall

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, things that happened in the distant past cannot be observed, but evidence of them can be.
> 
> 
> 
> What if we could fold space and end up 65 million light years away in an instant? Then we could watch the dinosaurs go extinct.
Click to expand...






Yeah, but we would have to have some REAL powerful telescopes!


----------



## westwall

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are engaged in respectful discourse that will educate both him
> 
> 
> 
> No it won't. He knows the things he is saying are stupid and false. But anyhoo, now I'm feeding the troll by talking about him.
Click to expand...






And if he does i will then ignore him.  Until he proves he is a ignoramous I will treat him with respect.


----------



## Flopper

progressive hunter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, abiogenesis happened. Can anyone make a sound argument that it only happened once and will only happen once in the history of our universe? Of course not.
> 
> Only twice? Just as impossible to argue.
> 
> So we are left to accept that it almost certainly happened and will happen many, many times in our universe, despite our egocentric religious history to the contrary.
> 
> We call this, "Learning."
> 
> 
> 
> ya know FWI if you could just show us what humans were before we became humans would go a long way towards changing my mind,,,
> 
> did we walk out of the ocean as humans or were we birthed by something else????
> 
> 
> if its a proven fact then this latest thing should be easy to show us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientific proof is an often used term of laymen but most scientists agree that there is really no such thing. Empirical sciences can furnish us with information about the world, but proofs do not occur, if by proof you mean an argument which establishes once and forever the truth of a theory.
> 
> There is certain a huge amount of evidence of evolution certainly more than a story of a supreme being creating the heavens and earth and all it's creatures. However, scientific proof, does not and can not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> then they need to stop teaching it as fact,,,
Click to expand...

It is called the theory of evolution.  Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts.  It begins with an idea, a hypothesis that explains some observed phenomenon. If enough evidence accumulates to support this idea, it moves to the next step, known as a theory.  The theory and supporting evidence is published.  Other scientists publish there research which may support or oppose the theory.  Over time the theory becomes accepted or is rejected by scientists.  However, it always remains a theory subject to change.

The theory of evolution, really natural selection was published by Darwin over 180 years ago.  Since then there have been thousands of papers written supporting the theory most in form of papers and charts showing the evolution of various creatures including man.  Most, but not all the evidence is archaeological.

When we say evolution is a fact, what is mean is a well accepted theory which is supported by a preponderance of evidence.   The theory of evolution is taught as fact just as we teach the theory of gravitation or the theory of germs.  All of which have been useful explanations of observations.


----------



## deanrd

52ndStreet said:


> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!


 That same argument was made against NASA. Now about every piece of complicated electrical electronic scientific equipment that we have, originated or started with people who worked at NASA  or inventions that came from NASA.


----------



## progressive hunter

Flopper said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, abiogenesis happened. Can anyone make a sound argument that it only happened once and will only happen once in the history of our universe? Of course not.
> 
> Only twice? Just as impossible to argue.
> 
> So we are left to accept that it almost certainly happened and will happen many, many times in our universe, despite our egocentric religious history to the contrary.
> 
> We call this, "Learning."
> 
> 
> 
> ya know FWI if you could just show us what humans were before we became humans would go a long way towards changing my mind,,,
> 
> did we walk out of the ocean as humans or were we birthed by something else????
> 
> 
> if its a proven fact then this latest thing should be easy to show us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientific proof is an often used term of laymen but most scientists agree that there is really no such thing. Empirical sciences can furnish us with information about the world, but proofs do not occur, if by proof you mean an argument which establishes once and forever the truth of a theory.
> 
> There is certain a huge amount of evidence of evolution certainly more than a story of a supreme being creating the heavens and earth and all it's creatures. However, scientific proof, does not and can not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> then they need to stop teaching it as fact,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is called the theory of evolution.  Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts.  It begins with an idea, a hypothesis that explains some observed phenomenon. If enough evidence accumulates to support this idea, it moves to the next step, known as a theory.  The theory and supporting evidence is published.  Other scientists publish there research which may support or oppose the theory.  Over time the theory becomes accepted or is rejected by scientists.  However, it always remains a theory subject to change.
> 
> The theory of evolution, really natural selection was published by Darwin over 180 years ago.  Since then there have been thousands of papers written supporting the theory most in form of papers and charts showing the evolution of various creatures including man.  Most, but not all the evidence is archaeological.
> 
> When we say evolution is a fact, what is mean is a well accepted theory which is supported by a preponderance of evidence.   The theory of evolution is taught as fact just as we teach the theory of gravitation or the theory of germs.  All of which have been useful explanations of observations.
Click to expand...

but what facts are there that prove humans came from non living matter???

I think your using the word facts instead of what it should be,which is information,,,because there are no facts that even come close to show  life from nonliving matter


----------



## westwall

progressive hunter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, abiogenesis happened. Can anyone make a sound argument that it only happened once and will only happen once in the history of our universe? Of course not.
> 
> Only twice? Just as impossible to argue.
> 
> So we are left to accept that it almost certainly happened and will happen many, many times in our universe, despite our egocentric religious history to the contrary.
> 
> We call this, "Learning."
> 
> 
> 
> ya know FWI if you could just show us what humans were before we became humans would go a long way towards changing my mind,,,
> 
> did we walk out of the ocean as humans or were we birthed by something else????
> 
> 
> if its a proven fact then this latest thing should be easy to show us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientific proof is an often used term of laymen but most scientists agree that there is really no such thing. Empirical sciences can furnish us with information about the world, but proofs do not occur, if by proof you mean an argument which establishes once and forever the truth of a theory.
> 
> There is certain a huge amount of evidence of evolution certainly more than a story of a supreme being creating the heavens and earth and all it's creatures. However, scientific proof, does not and can not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> then they need to stop teaching it as fact,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is called the theory of evolution.  Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts.  It begins with an idea, a hypothesis that explains some observed phenomenon. If enough evidence accumulates to support this idea, it moves to the next step, known as a theory.  The theory and supporting evidence is published.  Other scientists publish there research which may support or oppose the theory.  Over time the theory becomes accepted or is rejected by scientists.  However, it always remains a theory subject to change.
> 
> The theory of evolution, really natural selection was published by Darwin over 180 years ago.  Since then there have been thousands of papers written supporting the theory most in form of papers and charts showing the evolution of various creatures including man.  Most, but not all the evidence is archaeological.
> 
> When we say evolution is a fact, what is mean is a well accepted theory which is supported by a preponderance of evidence.   The theory of evolution is taught as fact just as we teach the theory of gravitation or the theory of germs.  All of which have been useful explanations of observations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but what facts are there that prove humans came from non living matter???
> 
> I think your using the word facts instead of what it should be,which is information,,,because there are no facts that even come close to show  life from nonliving matter
Click to expand...







There are no facts.  There are only ideas.  Anyone who claims otherwise doesn't understand science.  However, the fact that there are no observable facts to support the idea, doesn't mean it is false.  Just like because there is no evidence for God making man, that automatically precludes that idea either.


----------



## progressive hunter

westwall said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> ya know FWI if you could just show us what humans were before we became humans would go a long way towards changing my mind,,,
> 
> did we walk out of the ocean as humans or were we birthed by something else????
> 
> 
> if its a proven fact then this latest thing should be easy to show us
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific proof is an often used term of laymen but most scientists agree that there is really no such thing. Empirical sciences can furnish us with information about the world, but proofs do not occur, if by proof you mean an argument which establishes once and forever the truth of a theory.
> 
> There is certain a huge amount of evidence of evolution certainly more than a story of a supreme being creating the heavens and earth and all it's creatures. However, scientific proof, does not and can not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> then they need to stop teaching it as fact,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is called the theory of evolution.  Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts.  It begins with an idea, a hypothesis that explains some observed phenomenon. If enough evidence accumulates to support this idea, it moves to the next step, known as a theory.  The theory and supporting evidence is published.  Other scientists publish there research which may support or oppose the theory.  Over time the theory becomes accepted or is rejected by scientists.  However, it always remains a theory subject to change.
> 
> The theory of evolution, really natural selection was published by Darwin over 180 years ago.  Since then there have been thousands of papers written supporting the theory most in form of papers and charts showing the evolution of various creatures including man.  Most, but not all the evidence is archaeological.
> 
> When we say evolution is a fact, what is mean is a well accepted theory which is supported by a preponderance of evidence.   The theory of evolution is taught as fact just as we teach the theory of gravitation or the theory of germs.  All of which have been useful explanations of observations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but what facts are there that prove humans came from non living matter???
> 
> I think your using the word facts instead of what it should be,which is information,,,because there are no facts that even come close to show  life from nonliving matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no facts.  There are only ideas.  Anyone who claims otherwise doesn't understand science.  However, the fact that there are no observable facts to support the idea, doesn't mean it is false.  Just like because there is no evidence for God making man, that automatically precludes that idea either.
Click to expand...




and doesnt mean its true either,,,
and why is the only choice  between god or evolution???

I'm not in either camp,,,I just know with what I've seen that both are in question and neither are provable,,,

but only the evos attack you when you question their beliefs,,,


----------



## Montrovant

progressive hunter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, abiogenesis happened. Can anyone make a sound argument that it only happened once and will only happen once in the history of our universe? Of course not.
> 
> Only twice? Just as impossible to argue.
> 
> So we are left to accept that it almost certainly happened and will happen many, many times in our universe, despite our egocentric religious history to the contrary.
> 
> We call this, "Learning."
> 
> 
> 
> ya know FWI if you could just show us what humans were before we became humans would go a long way towards changing my mind,,,
> 
> did we walk out of the ocean as humans or were we birthed by something else????
> 
> 
> if its a proven fact then this latest thing should be easy to show us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientific proof is an often used term of laymen but most scientists agree that there is really no such thing. Empirical sciences can furnish us with information about the world, but proofs do not occur, if by proof you mean an argument which establishes once and forever the truth of a theory.
> 
> There is certain a huge amount of evidence of evolution certainly more than a story of a supreme being creating the heavens and earth and all it's creatures. However, scientific proof, does not and can not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> then they need to stop teaching it as fact,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is called the theory of evolution.  Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts.  It begins with an idea, a hypothesis that explains some observed phenomenon. If enough evidence accumulates to support this idea, it moves to the next step, known as a theory.  The theory and supporting evidence is published.  Other scientists publish there research which may support or oppose the theory.  Over time the theory becomes accepted or is rejected by scientists.  However, it always remains a theory subject to change.
> 
> The theory of evolution, really natural selection was published by Darwin over 180 years ago.  Since then there have been thousands of papers written supporting the theory most in form of papers and charts showing the evolution of various creatures including man.  Most, but not all the evidence is archaeological.
> 
> When we say evolution is a fact, what is mean is a well accepted theory which is supported by a preponderance of evidence.   The theory of evolution is taught as fact just as we teach the theory of gravitation or the theory of germs.  All of which have been useful explanations of observations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but what facts are there that prove humans came from non living matter???
> 
> I think your using the word facts instead of what it should be,which is information,,,because there are no facts that even come close to show  life from nonliving matter
Click to expand...


Evolution and abiogenesis are not the same thing.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Montrovant said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> ya know FWI if you could just show us what humans were before we became humans would go a long way towards changing my mind,,,
> 
> did we walk out of the ocean as humans or were we birthed by something else????
> 
> 
> if its a proven fact then this latest thing should be easy to show us
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific proof is an often used term of laymen but most scientists agree that there is really no such thing. Empirical sciences can furnish us with information about the world, but proofs do not occur, if by proof you mean an argument which establishes once and forever the truth of a theory.
> 
> There is certain a huge amount of evidence of evolution certainly more than a story of a supreme being creating the heavens and earth and all it's creatures. However, scientific proof, does not and can not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> then they need to stop teaching it as fact,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is called the theory of evolution.  Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts.  It begins with an idea, a hypothesis that explains some observed phenomenon. If enough evidence accumulates to support this idea, it moves to the next step, known as a theory.  The theory and supporting evidence is published.  Other scientists publish there research which may support or oppose the theory.  Over time the theory becomes accepted or is rejected by scientists.  However, it always remains a theory subject to change.
> 
> The theory of evolution, really natural selection was published by Darwin over 180 years ago.  Since then there have been thousands of papers written supporting the theory most in form of papers and charts showing the evolution of various creatures including man.  Most, but not all the evidence is archaeological.
> 
> When we say evolution is a fact, what is mean is a well accepted theory which is supported by a preponderance of evidence.   The theory of evolution is taught as fact just as we teach the theory of gravitation or the theory of germs.  All of which have been useful explanations of observations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but what facts are there that prove humans came from non living matter???
> 
> I think your using the word facts instead of what it should be,which is information,,,because there are no facts that even come close to show  life from nonliving matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution and abiogenesis are not the same thing.
Click to expand...

He knows that. He has been told that many, many times. He is a trolling sockpuppet.


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific proof is an often used term of laymen but most scientists agree that there is really no such thing. Empirical sciences can furnish us with information about the world, but proofs do not occur, if by proof you mean an argument which establishes once and forever the truth of a theory.
> 
> There is certain a huge amount of evidence of evolution certainly more than a story of a supreme being creating the heavens and earth and all it's creatures. However, scientific proof, does not and can not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then they need to stop teaching it as fact,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is called the theory of evolution.  Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts.  It begins with an idea, a hypothesis that explains some observed phenomenon. If enough evidence accumulates to support this idea, it moves to the next step, known as a theory.  The theory and supporting evidence is published.  Other scientists publish there research which may support or oppose the theory.  Over time the theory becomes accepted or is rejected by scientists.  However, it always remains a theory subject to change.
> 
> The theory of evolution, really natural selection was published by Darwin over 180 years ago.  Since then there have been thousands of papers written supporting the theory most in form of papers and charts showing the evolution of various creatures including man.  Most, but not all the evidence is archaeological.
> 
> When we say evolution is a fact, what is mean is a well accepted theory which is supported by a preponderance of evidence.   The theory of evolution is taught as fact just as we teach the theory of gravitation or the theory of germs.  All of which have been useful explanations of observations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but what facts are there that prove humans came from non living matter???
> 
> I think your using the word facts instead of what it should be,which is information,,,because there are no facts that even come close to show  life from nonliving matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution and abiogenesis are not the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He knows. He is a trolling sockpuppet.
Click to expand...



face it youre just mad I question your religion,,,


----------



## petro

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Would we even know alien life, if we saw it?





westwall said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spare me your claims of evidence of magical sky daddies. Go pollute the religion section with that magical nonsense. This is the science section.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your science ends up as science fiction haha.  Your aliens are still nowhere to be found.  Neither are the abiogenesis life cells formed under a supervolcano.  No ape has become bipedal.  No chicken has grown dino feet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you never heard about the life forms around black smokers.  A completely alien life form that requires no sunlight to exist.  Over 800 different species have been discovered over the 40 years since they were discovered.
> 
> For people who claim to be all "sciency" you sure don't know very much.
Click to expand...

For all we know the cetaceans in our own oceans could be communicating complex mathematical formulas for pure entertainment. Larger brains and a lot longer on the evolutionary scale than us primates. We measure intelligence and sentience on a human perspective, but we are deaf, dumb and blind  in our ability to perceive our true surroundings.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Montrovant said:


> Evolution and abiogenesis are not the same thing.


Yes. But thehy do share a fundamental principles: selection.


----------



## rightwinger

westwall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, anyhoo, we know all life here evolved on earth from a common, single celled ancestor. Some peole like to propose that the planet was seeded with life, or with DNA. But there is no good reason to believe that. That seed would have to have formed via abiogenesis or selection elsewhere in the first place. And all the necessary constituents were present here on earth. Since abiogenesis is already a foregone conclusion, insiting that it had to happen elsewhere is quite unnecessary.
> 
> 
> 
> and how do we know that???
> 
> the first rule of science is it has to be observed,,,and last I heard there are no people that are billions of yrs old that saw this happen
> 
> 
> so your belief is based on magic or just make believe,,,and sure isnt science,,,
> 
> just face it,,,your belief is no different than any other religion,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link
> 
> Where is the first rule of science that it has to be observed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a fundamental precept of the scientific method.  Obviously, things that happened in the distant past cannot be observed, but evidence of them can be.
Click to expand...

Absolutely

We have seen evidence of evolution over time.....that is an observation
We do not need to have been present to observe single cells evolving into human beings


----------



## westwall

progressive hunter said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific proof is an often used term of laymen but most scientists agree that there is really no such thing. Empirical sciences can furnish us with information about the world, but proofs do not occur, if by proof you mean an argument which establishes once and forever the truth of a theory.
> 
> There is certain a huge amount of evidence of evolution certainly more than a story of a supreme being creating the heavens and earth and all it's creatures. However, scientific proof, does not and can not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then they need to stop teaching it as fact,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is called the theory of evolution.  Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts.  It begins with an idea, a hypothesis that explains some observed phenomenon. If enough evidence accumulates to support this idea, it moves to the next step, known as a theory.  The theory and supporting evidence is published.  Other scientists publish there research which may support or oppose the theory.  Over time the theory becomes accepted or is rejected by scientists.  However, it always remains a theory subject to change.
> 
> The theory of evolution, really natural selection was published by Darwin over 180 years ago.  Since then there have been thousands of papers written supporting the theory most in form of papers and charts showing the evolution of various creatures including man.  Most, but not all the evidence is archaeological.
> 
> When we say evolution is a fact, what is mean is a well accepted theory which is supported by a preponderance of evidence.   The theory of evolution is taught as fact just as we teach the theory of gravitation or the theory of germs.  All of which have been useful explanations of observations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but what facts are there that prove humans came from non living matter???
> 
> I think your using the word facts instead of what it should be,which is information,,,because there are no facts that even come close to show  life from nonliving matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no facts.  There are only ideas.  Anyone who claims otherwise doesn't understand science.  However, the fact that there are no observable facts to support the idea, doesn't mean it is false.  Just like because there is no evidence for God making man, that automatically precludes that idea either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and doesnt mean its true either,,,
> and why is the only choice  between god or evolution???
> 
> I'm not in either camp,,,I just know with what I've seen that both are in question and neither are provable,,,
> 
> but only the evos attack you when you question their beliefs,,,
Click to expand...







Part of what you say is true, but at one time in our history (and in Islamist areas they still do) religious folks would kill you for not believing as they did.  Fortunately those times are for the most part passed.  

The reason why it is a either or choice is because those are the only two ways that life can exist.  It either erupts spontaneously, or it is created.


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, anyhoo, we know all life here evolved on earth from a common, single celled ancestor. Some peole like to propose that the planet was seeded with life, or with DNA. But there is no good reason to believe that. That seed would have to have formed via abiogenesis or selection elsewhere in the first place. And all the necessary constituents were present here on earth. Since abiogenesis is already a foregone conclusion, insiting that it had to happen elsewhere is quite unnecessary.
> 
> 
> 
> and how do we know that???
> 
> the first rule of science is it has to be observed,,,and last I heard there are no people that are billions of yrs old that saw this happen
> 
> 
> so your belief is based on magic or just make believe,,,and sure isnt science,,,
> 
> just face it,,,your belief is no different than any other religion,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link
> 
> Where is the first rule of science that it has to be observed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a fundamental precept of the scientific method.  Obviously, things that happened in the distant past cannot be observed, but evidence of them can be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely
> 
> We have seen evidence of evolution over time.....that is an observation
> We do not need to have been present to observe single cells evolving into human beings
Click to expand...







Maybe, maybe not.  No evolutionary change has ever been observed where something changed into something it is not.  That requires a belief every bit as fundamental as believing God created Man.


----------



## progressive hunter

rightwinger said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, anyhoo, we know all life here evolved on earth from a common, single celled ancestor. Some peole like to propose that the planet was seeded with life, or with DNA. But there is no good reason to believe that. That seed would have to have formed via abiogenesis or selection elsewhere in the first place. And all the necessary constituents were present here on earth. Since abiogenesis is already a foregone conclusion, insiting that it had to happen elsewhere is quite unnecessary.
> 
> 
> 
> and how do we know that???
> 
> the first rule of science is it has to be observed,,,and last I heard there are no people that are billions of yrs old that saw this happen
> 
> 
> so your belief is based on magic or just make believe,,,and sure isnt science,,,
> 
> just face it,,,your belief is no different than any other religion,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link
> 
> Where is the first rule of science that it has to be observed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a fundamental precept of the scientific method.  Obviously, things that happened in the distant past cannot be observed, but evidence of them can be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely
> 
> We have seen evidence of evolution over time.....that is an observation
> We do not need to have been present to observe single cells evolving into human beings
Click to expand...



NO WE HAVE'NT,,,

not one time have we seen anything  give birth to anything other than its own kind,,,

and not one time have we ever seen life form from non-living matter,,,

and those are the two main things evolution is based on,,,


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

westwall said:


> No evolutionary change has ever been observed where something changed into something it is not.


False. We have observed speciation.



westwall said:


> That requires a belief every bit as fundamental as believing God created Man.


Nonsense. Go ahead and show me something comparable as evidence for divine creation to the excellent fossil record we have for the evolution of whales. You can't, because not only is there not anything comparable to this robust evidential support, there is not a shred of evidence at all!

Go ahead and show me the mechanism by which god created man. You can't. But i can show you the mechanisms by which animals speciate.

Show me the forensic record of divine creation. You can't, because none exists. But i can show you 4 billion years of forensic records that show the evolution of everything we see today from a common, single celled ancestor. The order is always the same. I can show you how it matches perfectly with DNA research, archaeology, geology, and zoology.

So no, they are not comparable "fundamental beliefs". One is completely faith based, comes without a shred of evidence, explains nothing, yields no useful predictions, is untestable, is unfalsifiable, and merely replaces one mystery with another.

The other is supported by ALL of the evidence, with all the evidence being mutually supportive. It is testable and falsifiable. It explains every observation of the flora and fauna of the planet, past and present,  and it yields accurate predictions.

There is no comparison on any level, "fundamental" or otherwise.


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No evolutionary change has ever been observed where something changed into something it is not.
> 
> 
> 
> False. We have observed speciation.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> That requires a belief every bit as fundamental as believing God created Man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Go ahead and show me something comparable as evidence for divine creation to the excellent fossil record we have for the evolution of whales. You can't, because not only is there not anything comparable, there is not a shred of evidence.
> 
> Go ahead and show me the mechanism by which god created man. You can't. But i can show you the mechanisms by which animals speciate.
Click to expand...

your whale reference has been proven false a long time ago,,,,

and dont deflect to god when you cant even back up your own claims,,,


----------



## rightwinger

progressive hunter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, anyhoo, we know all life here evolved on earth from a common, single celled ancestor. Some peole like to propose that the planet was seeded with life, or with DNA. But there is no good reason to believe that. That seed would have to have formed via abiogenesis or selection elsewhere in the first place. And all the necessary constituents were present here on earth. Since abiogenesis is already a foregone conclusion, insiting that it had to happen elsewhere is quite unnecessary.
> 
> 
> 
> and how do we know that???
> 
> the first rule of science is it has to be observed,,,and last I heard there are no people that are billions of yrs old that saw this happen
> 
> 
> so your belief is based on magic or just make believe,,,and sure isnt science,,,
> 
> just face it,,,your belief is no different than any other religion,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link
> 
> Where is the first rule of science that it has to be observed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a fundamental precept of the scientific method.  Obviously, things that happened in the distant past cannot be observed, but evidence of them can be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely
> 
> We have seen evidence of evolution over time.....that is an observation
> We do not need to have been present to observe single cells evolving into human beings
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NO WE HAVE'NT,,,
> 
> not one time have we seen anything  give birth to anything other than its own kind,,,
> 
> and not one time have we ever seen life form from non-living matter,,,
> 
> and those are the two main things evolution is based on,,,
Click to expand...

We have observed geologic strata from hundreds of billions of years
Those strata show single cell and non complex creatures at the lowest levels with no complex creatures mixed in. The higher up the strata, the more complex the creature. 
Evolution is a fact


----------



## progressive hunter

rightwinger said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> and how do we know that???
> 
> the first rule of science is it has to be observed,,,and last I heard there are no people that are billions of yrs old that saw this happen
> 
> 
> so your belief is based on magic or just make believe,,,and sure isnt science,,,
> 
> just face it,,,your belief is no different than any other religion,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link
> 
> Where is the first rule of science that it has to be observed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a fundamental precept of the scientific method.  Obviously, things that happened in the distant past cannot be observed, but evidence of them can be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely
> 
> We have seen evidence of evolution over time.....that is an observation
> We do not need to have been present to observe single cells evolving into human beings
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NO WE HAVE'NT,,,
> 
> not one time have we seen anything  give birth to anything other than its own kind,,,
> 
> and not one time have we ever seen life form from non-living matter,,,
> 
> and those are the two main things evolution is based on,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have observed geologic strata from hundreds of billions of years
> Those strata show single cell and non complex creatures at the lowest levels with no complex creatures mixed in. The higher up the strata, the more complex the creature.
> Evolution is a fact
Click to expand...

that proves nothing other than something died,,,let alone it is billions of yrs old,,,


----------



## Flopper

progressive hunter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, abiogenesis happened. Can anyone make a sound argument that it only happened once and will only happen once in the history of our universe? Of course not.
> 
> Only twice? Just as impossible to argue.
> 
> So we are left to accept that it almost certainly happened and will happen many, many times in our universe, despite our egocentric religious history to the contrary.
> 
> We call this, "Learning."
> 
> 
> 
> ya know FWI if you could just show us what humans were before we became humans would go a long way towards changing my mind,,,
> 
> did we walk out of the ocean as humans or were we birthed by something else????
> 
> 
> if its a proven fact then this latest thing should be easy to show us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientific proof is an often used term of laymen but most scientists agree that there is really no such thing. Empirical sciences can furnish us with information about the world, but proofs do not occur, if by proof you mean an argument which establishes once and forever the truth of a theory.
> 
> There is certain a huge amount of evidence of evolution certainly more than a story of a supreme being creating the heavens and earth and all it's creatures. However, scientific proof, does not and can not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> then they need to stop teaching it as fact,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is called the theory of evolution.  Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts.  It begins with an idea, a hypothesis that explains some observed phenomenon. If enough evidence accumulates to support this idea, it moves to the next step, known as a theory.  The theory and supporting evidence is published.  Other scientists publish there research which may support or oppose the theory.  Over time the theory becomes accepted or is rejected by scientists.  However, it always remains a theory subject to change.
> 
> The theory of evolution, really natural selection was published by Darwin over 180 years ago.  Since then there have been thousands of papers written supporting the theory most in form of papers and charts showing the evolution of various creatures including man.  Most, but not all the evidence is archaeological.
> 
> When we say evolution is a fact, what is mean is a well accepted theory which is supported by a preponderance of evidence.   The theory of evolution is taught as fact just as we teach the theory of gravitation or the theory of germs.  All of which have been useful explanations of observations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but what facts are there that prove humans came from non living matter???
> 
> I think your using the word facts instead of what it should be,which is information,,,because there are no facts that even come close to show  life from nonliving matter
Click to expand...

You've been mixing up two entirely different theories, the Theory of Evolution, which explains the evolution of the species and *Abiogenesis*, a theory that attempts to explain the beginning life.  Evolution is well accepted among scientists and is treated as fact. 

Abiogenesis at this point in time, does not address the creation of human life or any other species but rather the creation of organic compounds from non-organic compounds which are considered the building blocks of life.  Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life.  It's been demonstrated in the lab that most amino acids, the chemical constituents of the proteins used in all living organisms, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early earth.

In short, we understand a lot about the evolution of the species and how the building blocks of life could have been created on early earth.  However, we don't have any accepted explanation of how organic molecules developed into the first species.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Flopper said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> ya know FWI if you could just show us what humans were before we became humans would go a long way towards changing my mind,,,
> 
> did we walk out of the ocean as humans or were we birthed by something else????
> 
> 
> if its a proven fact then this latest thing should be easy to show us
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific proof is an often used term of laymen but most scientists agree that there is really no such thing. Empirical sciences can furnish us with information about the world, but proofs do not occur, if by proof you mean an argument which establishes once and forever the truth of a theory.
> 
> There is certain a huge amount of evidence of evolution certainly more than a story of a supreme being creating the heavens and earth and all it's creatures. However, scientific proof, does not and can not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> then they need to stop teaching it as fact,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is called the theory of evolution.  Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts.  It begins with an idea, a hypothesis that explains some observed phenomenon. If enough evidence accumulates to support this idea, it moves to the next step, known as a theory.  The theory and supporting evidence is published.  Other scientists publish there research which may support or oppose the theory.  Over time the theory becomes accepted or is rejected by scientists.  However, it always remains a theory subject to change.
> 
> The theory of evolution, really natural selection was published by Darwin over 180 years ago.  Since then there have been thousands of papers written supporting the theory most in form of papers and charts showing the evolution of various creatures including man.  Most, but not all the evidence is archaeological.
> 
> When we say evolution is a fact, what is mean is a well accepted theory which is supported by a preponderance of evidence.   The theory of evolution is taught as fact just as we teach the theory of gravitation or the theory of germs.  All of which have been useful explanations of observations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but what facts are there that prove humans came from non living matter???
> 
> I think your using the word facts instead of what it should be,which is information,,,because there are no facts that even come close to show  life from nonliving matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been mixing up two entirely different theories, the Theory of Evolution, which explains the evolution of the species and *Abiogenesis*, a theory that attempts to explain the beginning life.  Evolution is well accepted among scientists and is treated as fact.
> 
> Abiogenesis at this point in time, does not address the creation of human life or any other species but rather the creation of organic compounds from non-organic compounds which are considered the building blocks of life.  Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life.  It's been demonstrated in the lab that most amino acids, the chemical constituents of the proteins used in all living organisms, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early earth.
> 
> In short, we understand a lot about the evolution of the species and how the building blocks of life could have been created on early earth.  However, we don't have any accepted explanation of how organic molecules developed into the first species.
Click to expand...

Right. But it can be said that we have an accepted "effective theory" of abiogenesis: formation of life by selection. The most stable molecules persisted.  The most stable molecules which also replicated persisted even more. And the model that managed to do the best job of surrounding itself with protective layers persisted even further.  Etc., etc.


----------



## westwall

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No evolutionary change has ever been observed where something changed into something it is not.
> 
> 
> 
> False. We have observed speciation.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> That requires a belief every bit as fundamental as believing God created Man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Go ahead and show me something comparable as evidence for divine creation to the excellent fossil record we have for the evolution of whales. You can't, because not only is there not anything comparable to this robust evidential support, there is not a shred of evidence at all!
> 
> Go ahead and show me the mechanism by which god created man. You can't. But i can show you the mechanisms by which animals speciate.
> 
> Show me the forensic record of divine creation. You can't, because none exists. But i can show you 4 billion years of forensic records that show the evolution of everything we see today from a common, single celled ancestor. The order is always the same. I can show you how it matches perfectly with DNA research, archaeology, geology, and zoology.
> 
> So no, they are not comparable "fundamental beliefs". One is completely faith based, comes without a shred of evidence, explains nothing, yields no useful predictions, is untestable, is unfalsifiable, and merely replaces one mystery with another.
> 
> The other is supported by ALL of the evidence, with all the evidence being mutually supportive. It is testable and falsifiable. It explains every observation of the flora and fauna of the planet, past and present,  and it yields accurate predictions.
> 
> There is no comparison on any level, "fundamental" or otherwise.
Click to expand...








SPECIATION.  Not one thing turning into another thing.  That's the whole point of breakdown with evolutionary theory.  Birds are still birds, they are merely changed in some slight manner.

I can't give you evidence for God.  There is none.  Just like I can't give you evidence for what happened at the Big bang.  All we can do is theorize.  

However, the Book of Genesis, and modern cosmology share many, many descriptors.


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> and how do we know that???
> 
> the first rule of science is it has to be observed,,,and last I heard there are no people that are billions of yrs old that saw this happen
> 
> 
> so your belief is based on magic or just make believe,,,and sure isnt science,,,
> 
> just face it,,,your belief is no different than any other religion,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link
> 
> Where is the first rule of science that it has to be observed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a fundamental precept of the scientific method.  Obviously, things that happened in the distant past cannot be observed, but evidence of them can be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely
> 
> We have seen evidence of evolution over time.....that is an observation
> We do not need to have been present to observe single cells evolving into human beings
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NO WE HAVE'NT,,,
> 
> not one time have we seen anything  give birth to anything other than its own kind,,,
> 
> and not one time have we ever seen life form from non-living matter,,,
> 
> and those are the two main things evolution is based on,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have observed geologic strata from hundreds of billions of years
> Those strata show single cell and non complex creatures at the lowest levels with no complex creatures mixed in. The higher up the strata, the more complex the creature.
> Evolution is a fact
Click to expand...







Hundreds of millions, not billions.  What the fossil record doesn't show is a single cell creature and its transformation into a multi celled creature.  There is no evidence that exists on the planet to support that idea.  

Yes, evolution is a fact.  There is no doubt about that.  But there is no evidence so far that shows evolution occurring that modifies one critter, into a different type of critter.


----------



## westwall

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific proof is an often used term of laymen but most scientists agree that there is really no such thing. Empirical sciences can furnish us with information about the world, but proofs do not occur, if by proof you mean an argument which establishes once and forever the truth of a theory.
> 
> There is certain a huge amount of evidence of evolution certainly more than a story of a supreme being creating the heavens and earth and all it's creatures. However, scientific proof, does not and can not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then they need to stop teaching it as fact,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is called the theory of evolution.  Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts.  It begins with an idea, a hypothesis that explains some observed phenomenon. If enough evidence accumulates to support this idea, it moves to the next step, known as a theory.  The theory and supporting evidence is published.  Other scientists publish there research which may support or oppose the theory.  Over time the theory becomes accepted or is rejected by scientists.  However, it always remains a theory subject to change.
> 
> The theory of evolution, really natural selection was published by Darwin over 180 years ago.  Since then there have been thousands of papers written supporting the theory most in form of papers and charts showing the evolution of various creatures including man.  Most, but not all the evidence is archaeological.
> 
> When we say evolution is a fact, what is mean is a well accepted theory which is supported by a preponderance of evidence.   The theory of evolution is taught as fact just as we teach the theory of gravitation or the theory of germs.  All of which have been useful explanations of observations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but what facts are there that prove humans came from non living matter???
> 
> I think your using the word facts instead of what it should be,which is information,,,because there are no facts that even come close to show  life from nonliving matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been mixing up two entirely different theories, the Theory of Evolution, which explains the evolution of the species and *Abiogenesis*, a theory that attempts to explain the beginning life.  Evolution is well accepted among scientists and is treated as fact.
> 
> Abiogenesis at this point in time, does not address the creation of human life or any other species but rather the creation of organic compounds from non-organic compounds which are considered the building blocks of life.  Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life.  It's been demonstrated in the lab that most amino acids, the chemical constituents of the proteins used in all living organisms, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early earth.
> 
> In short, we understand a lot about the evolution of the species and how the building blocks of life could have been created on early earth.  However, we don't have any accepted explanation of how organic molecules developed into the first species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right. But it can be said that we have an accepted "effective theory" of abiogenesis: formation of life by selection. The most stable molecules persisted.  The most stable molecules which also replicated persisted even more. And the model that managed to do the best job of surrounding itself with protective layers persisted even further.  Etc., etc.
Click to expand...








We also have evidence of abiogenic oil.  Drilled for, and found within the deep kraton of North America.  A place where modern petroleum theory said it could never be found.


----------



## Flopper

progressive hunter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link
> 
> Where is the first rule of science that it has to be observed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a fundamental precept of the scientific method.  Obviously, things that happened in the distant past cannot be observed, but evidence of them can be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely
> 
> We have seen evidence of evolution over time.....that is an observation
> We do not need to have been present to observe single cells evolving into human beings
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NO WE HAVE'NT,,,
> 
> not one time have we seen anything  give birth to anything other than its own kind,,,
> 
> and not one time have we ever seen life form from non-living matter,,,
> 
> and those are the two main things evolution is based on,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have observed geologic strata from hundreds of billions of years
> Those strata show single cell and non complex creatures at the lowest levels with no complex creatures mixed in. The higher up the strata, the more complex the creature.
> Evolution is a fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that proves nothing other than something died,,,let alone it is billions of yrs old,,,
Click to expand...

No, it is evidence of age because it can be dated.  Radiometric dating is used to date the strata above and below the fossil thus giving a relative date range.  Radiometric dating can used to determine the an accurate age of some fossils independent of strata.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

westwall said:


> SPECIATION. Not one thing turning into another thing.


That's what speciation is.


westwall said:


> Birds are still birds, they are merely changed in some slight manner.


 And vertebrates are still vertebrates. And animals are still animals.  You are drawing arbitrary lines in the sand.  With the amount of mutually supportive evidence (a/k/a, every observation of anything, ever), including the known mechanisms of evolution that would (you couldn't stop it if you wtried) change one species so much that, eventually, their progeny would be something "completely different" , we know all animals will eventually "change into something different".

The robust fossil record showing land vertebrates becoming whales: That is an observation of something becoming "something else". But you say it isn't.  Okay then, you can answer some questions, and answer them all for every single fossil in the ancestral whale record:

- where did the species come from?
- where did it go?
- if it is not the ancestor/descendant of (another fossil), then why are the characteristics so similar?  Why in the same place? Why does it appear right after the other fossil disappears from the record?
- why does it disappear from the record at the nearly the same time we find the next fossil in the series appearing?

Evolution answers every question easily. Divine creation.... nassomuch.




westwall said:


> Just like I can't give you evidence for what happened at the Big bang.


False. We actually took a picture of the big Bang: the CMB image. Yes, you can provide evidence for what happened at the big bang, and lots of it.


----------



## Flopper

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No evolutionary change has ever been observed where something changed into something it is not.
> 
> 
> 
> False. We have observed speciation.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> That requires a belief every bit as fundamental as believing God created Man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Go ahead and show me something comparable as evidence for divine creation to the excellent fossil record we have for the evolution of whales. You can't, because not only is there not anything comparable, there is not a shred of evidence.
> 
> Go ahead and show me the mechanism by which god created man. You can't. But i can show you the mechanisms by which animals speciate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your whale reference has been proven false a long time ago,,,,
> 
> and dont deflect to god when you cant even back up your own claims,,,
Click to expand...

Was that done by Jonah when he wandering around inside a whale?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

westwall said:


> We also have evidence of abiogenic oil.


yes, it's plausible, but still an early hypothesis.


----------



## westwall

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> SPECIATION. Not one thing turning into another thing.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what speciation is.
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Birds are still birds, they are merely changed in some slight manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And vertebrates are still vertebrates. And animals are still animals.  You are drawing arbitrary lines in the sand.  With the amount of mutually supportive evidence (a/k/a, every observation of anything, ever), including the known mechanisms of evolution that would (you couldn't stop it if you wtried) change one species so much that, eventually, their progeny would be something "completely different" , we know all animals will eventually "change into something different".
> 
> They robust fossil record showing land vertebrates becoming whales: That is an observation of something becoming "something else". But you say it isn't.  Okay then, you can answer some questions, and answer them all for every single fossil in the ancestral whale record:
> 
> - where did the species come from?
> - where did it go?
> - if it is not the ancestor/descendant of (another fossil), then why are the characteristics so similar?  Why in the same place? Why does it appear right after the other fossil disappears from the record?
> - why does it disappear from the record at the nearly the same time we find the next fossil in the series appearing?
> 
> Evolution answers every question easily. Divine creation.... nassomuch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like I can't give you evidence for what happened at the Big bang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False. We actually took a picture of the big Bang. Yes, you can provide evidence for what happened at the big bang, and lots of it.
Click to expand...







The point that he is making is that there is no evidence of a bird changing into a rat.  All evolution is one critter morphing over time into a very slightly different form of itself.  Birds develop longer beaks so they can get nectar from deeper flowers thus giving them an advantage over birds with shorter beaks.  But, they remain birds.  

No we have not taken a photograph of the Big Bang.  We can hear it, but there is no image of it.  Period end of story.  In fact, mathematics breaks down when you get to within a couple of hundred thousand years of the actual bang itself.  Cosmologists can mathematically postulate what happened beginning about 275,000 after the bang, but not before.  It is too chaotic.


----------



## westwall

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> We also have evidence of abiogenic oil.
> 
> 
> 
> yes, it's plausible, but still an early hypothesis.
Click to expand...






A hypothesis that is backed up by real world observation.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

westwall said:


> The point that he is making is that there is no evidence of a bird changing into a rat


Why would he think that argues against evolution? It doesn't.

And, eventually, some bird lines will change into something that can no longer be classified as a bird by the current classifications.  No, not all bird ancestral lines will 'always be birds", barring some sort of cataclysmic event that wipes out all bird lines.


westwall said:


> No we have not taken a photograph of the Big Bang.



So, you are saying we don't have an image of the precise moment of the big Bang. That's accurate. But that is not a good argument that we are taking anything on faith. And let's not forget that what you ACTUALLY said was that you couldn't produce any evidence of the Big bang.  that was false.  yes, you can, and lots of it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

westwall said:


> A hypothesis that is backed up by real world observation.


But very little. So, still a hypothesis. We will learn more...


----------



## westwall

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point that he is making is that there is no evidence of a bird changing into a rat
> 
> 
> 
> Why would he think that argues against evolution? It doesn't.
> 
> And, eventually, some bird lines will change into something that can no longer be classified as a bird by the current classifications.  No, not all bird ancestral lines will 'always be birds", barring some sort of cataclysmic event that wipes out all bird lines.
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No we have not taken a photograph of the Big Bang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you are saying we don't have an image of the precise moment of the big Bang. That's accurate. But that is not a good argument that we are taking anything on faith. And let's not forget that what you ACTUALLY said was that you couldn't produce any evidence of the Big bang.  that was false.  yes, you can, and lots of it.
Click to expand...





Not direct evidence.  Only math and a sound that comes from all areas of space (which in itself is a problem, a Big Bang would have a point of origin, thus the energy should NOT be coming from all around us.  Yet it does)  No direct evidence at all.  


Show me a bird that has morphed in such a way that it can longer be called a bird.


----------



## westwall

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> A hypothesis that is backed up by real world observation.
> 
> 
> 
> But very little. So, still a hypothesis. We will learn more...
Click to expand...






Actually, it is now backed up by a lot of evidence.  Igneous rock is supposed to be devoid of oil.  It ain't.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

westwall said:


> Not direct evidence.


No, that's not accurate. We found our "smoking gun" over 5 years ago, in the CMB data, caused by gravitational weaves



westwall said:


> Show me a bird that has morphed in such a way that it can longer be called a bird.


Why? My inability to show you 10 million years of the future on an internet message board would not lend any support the the false claim you made. 


westwall said:


> Actually, it is now backed up by a lot of evidence.


Hmm, no, still just a little.  And it still appears to be a fact that almost all the oil we ever found, are drilling now,  or could find is biotic.


----------



## rightwinger

progressive hunter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link
> 
> Where is the first rule of science that it has to be observed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a fundamental precept of the scientific method.  Obviously, things that happened in the distant past cannot be observed, but evidence of them can be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely
> 
> We have seen evidence of evolution over time.....that is an observation
> We do not need to have been present to observe single cells evolving into human beings
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NO WE HAVE'NT,,,
> 
> not one time have we seen anything  give birth to anything other than its own kind,,,
> 
> and not one time have we ever seen life form from non-living matter,,,
> 
> and those are the two main things evolution is based on,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have observed geologic strata from hundreds of billions of years
> Those strata show single cell and non complex creatures at the lowest levels with no complex creatures mixed in. The higher up the strata, the more complex the creature.
> Evolution is a fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that proves nothing other than something died,,,let alone it is billions of yrs old,,,
Click to expand...

It proves that when they died, there were only non complex organisms dying with them
No dinosaurs and no humans


----------



## Flopper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific proof is an often used term of laymen but most scientists agree that there is really no such thing. Empirical sciences can furnish us with information about the world, but proofs do not occur, if by proof you mean an argument which establishes once and forever the truth of a theory.
> 
> There is certain a huge amount of evidence of evolution certainly more than a story of a supreme being creating the heavens and earth and all it's creatures. However, scientific proof, does not and can not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then they need to stop teaching it as fact,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is called the theory of evolution.  Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts.  It begins with an idea, a hypothesis that explains some observed phenomenon. If enough evidence accumulates to support this idea, it moves to the next step, known as a theory.  The theory and supporting evidence is published.  Other scientists publish there research which may support or oppose the theory.  Over time the theory becomes accepted or is rejected by scientists.  However, it always remains a theory subject to change.
> 
> The theory of evolution, really natural selection was published by Darwin over 180 years ago.  Since then there have been thousands of papers written supporting the theory most in form of papers and charts showing the evolution of various creatures including man.  Most, but not all the evidence is archaeological.
> 
> When we say evolution is a fact, what is mean is a well accepted theory which is supported by a preponderance of evidence.   The theory of evolution is taught as fact just as we teach the theory of gravitation or the theory of germs.  All of which have been useful explanations of observations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but what facts are there that prove humans came from non living matter???
> 
> I think your using the word facts instead of what it should be,which is information,,,because there are no facts that even come close to show  life from nonliving matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been mixing up two entirely different theories, the Theory of Evolution, which explains the evolution of the species and *Abiogenesis*, a theory that attempts to explain the beginning life.  Evolution is well accepted among scientists and is treated as fact.
> 
> Abiogenesis at this point in time, does not address the creation of human life or any other species but rather the creation of organic compounds from non-organic compounds which are considered the building blocks of life.  Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life.  It's been demonstrated in the lab that most amino acids, the chemical constituents of the proteins used in all living organisms, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early earth.
> 
> In short, we understand a lot about the evolution of the species and how the building blocks of life could have been created on early earth.  However, we don't have any accepted explanation of how organic molecules developed into the first species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right. But it can be said that we have an accepted "effective theory" of abiogenesis: formation of life by selection. The most stable molecules persisted.  The most stable molecules which also replicated persisted even more. And the model that managed to do the best job of surrounding itself with protective layers persisted even further.  Etc., etc.
Click to expand...

The fact that organic molecules have been discovered in space has lead some to speculate that life may have begun off the earth.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Flopper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> then they need to stop teaching it as fact,,,
> 
> 
> 
> It is called the theory of evolution.  Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts.  It begins with an idea, a hypothesis that explains some observed phenomenon. If enough evidence accumulates to support this idea, it moves to the next step, known as a theory.  The theory and supporting evidence is published.  Other scientists publish there research which may support or oppose the theory.  Over time the theory becomes accepted or is rejected by scientists.  However, it always remains a theory subject to change.
> 
> The theory of evolution, really natural selection was published by Darwin over 180 years ago.  Since then there have been thousands of papers written supporting the theory most in form of papers and charts showing the evolution of various creatures including man.  Most, but not all the evidence is archaeological.
> 
> When we say evolution is a fact, what is mean is a well accepted theory which is supported by a preponderance of evidence.   The theory of evolution is taught as fact just as we teach the theory of gravitation or the theory of germs.  All of which have been useful explanations of observations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but what facts are there that prove humans came from non living matter???
> 
> I think your using the word facts instead of what it should be,which is information,,,because there are no facts that even come close to show  life from nonliving matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been mixing up two entirely different theories, the Theory of Evolution, which explains the evolution of the species and *Abiogenesis*, a theory that attempts to explain the beginning life.  Evolution is well accepted among scientists and is treated as fact.
> 
> Abiogenesis at this point in time, does not address the creation of human life or any other species but rather the creation of organic compounds from non-organic compounds which are considered the building blocks of life.  Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life.  It's been demonstrated in the lab that most amino acids, the chemical constituents of the proteins used in all living organisms, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early earth.
> 
> In short, we understand a lot about the evolution of the species and how the building blocks of life could have been created on early earth.  However, we don't have any accepted explanation of how organic molecules developed into the first species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right. But it can be said that we have an accepted "effective theory" of abiogenesis: formation of life by selection. The most stable molecules persisted.  The most stable molecules which also replicated persisted even more. And the model that managed to do the best job of surrounding itself with protective layers persisted even further.  Etc., etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that organic molecules have been discovered in space has lead some to speculate that life may have begun off the earth.
Click to expand...

But it's odd speculation, as it would more seem to indicate that organic chemicals can be found all over the place. It would first seem to speak to the possibility that it coild happen "anywhere" and "elsewhere", than the possibility that it DIDN'T happen here and happened elsewhere instead.

Not that I find it implausible. But occam's razor seems to stand against the idea. And there are so many ideas to cpnsider.

Perhaps complex organics came here in droves during bombardment, and then were acted upon by selection to produce the first dna or life.


----------



## progressive hunter

rightwinger said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a fundamental precept of the scientific method.  Obviously, things that happened in the distant past cannot be observed, but evidence of them can be.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely
> 
> We have seen evidence of evolution over time.....that is an observation
> We do not need to have been present to observe single cells evolving into human beings
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NO WE HAVE'NT,,,
> 
> not one time have we seen anything  give birth to anything other than its own kind,,,
> 
> and not one time have we ever seen life form from non-living matter,,,
> 
> and those are the two main things evolution is based on,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have observed geologic strata from hundreds of billions of years
> Those strata show single cell and non complex creatures at the lowest levels with no complex creatures mixed in. The higher up the strata, the more complex the creature.
> Evolution is a fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that proves nothing other than something died,,,let alone it is billions of yrs old,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It proves that when they died, there were only non complex organisms dying with them
> No dinosaurs and no humans
Click to expand...

no it doesnt,,,


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Anyone who thinks that saying "nothing has been seen to give birth to a different species" speaks to evolutionary theory is not qualified to open his mouth about evolution, ever.


----------



## progressive hunter

Flopper said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> ya know FWI if you could just show us what humans were before we became humans would go a long way towards changing my mind,,,
> 
> did we walk out of the ocean as humans or were we birthed by something else????
> 
> 
> if its a proven fact then this latest thing should be easy to show us
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific proof is an often used term of laymen but most scientists agree that there is really no such thing. Empirical sciences can furnish us with information about the world, but proofs do not occur, if by proof you mean an argument which establishes once and forever the truth of a theory.
> 
> There is certain a huge amount of evidence of evolution certainly more than a story of a supreme being creating the heavens and earth and all it's creatures. However, scientific proof, does not and can not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> then they need to stop teaching it as fact,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is called the theory of evolution.  Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts.  It begins with an idea, a hypothesis that explains some observed phenomenon. If enough evidence accumulates to support this idea, it moves to the next step, known as a theory.  The theory and supporting evidence is published.  Other scientists publish there research which may support or oppose the theory.  Over time the theory becomes accepted or is rejected by scientists.  However, it always remains a theory subject to change.
> 
> The theory of evolution, really natural selection was published by Darwin over 180 years ago.  Since then there have been thousands of papers written supporting the theory most in form of papers and charts showing the evolution of various creatures including man.  Most, but not all the evidence is archaeological.
> 
> When we say evolution is a fact, what is mean is a well accepted theory which is supported by a preponderance of evidence.   The theory of evolution is taught as fact just as we teach the theory of gravitation or the theory of germs.  All of which have been useful explanations of observations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but what facts are there that prove humans came from non living matter???
> 
> I think your using the word facts instead of what it should be,which is information,,,because there are no facts that even come close to show  life from nonliving matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been mixing up two entirely different theories, the Theory of Evolution, which explains the evolution of the species and *Abiogenesis*, a theory that attempts to explain the beginning life.  Evolution is well accepted among scientists and is treated as fact.
> 
> Abiogenesis at this point in time, does not address the creation of human life or any other species but rather the creation of organic compounds from non-organic compounds which are considered the building blocks of life.  Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life.  It's been demonstrated in the lab that most amino acids, the chemical constituents of the proteins used in all living organisms, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early earth.
> 
> In short, we understand a lot about the evolution of the species and how the building blocks of life could have been created on early earth.  However, we don't have any accepted explanation of how organic molecules developed into the first species.
Click to expand...

if we know so much about it then what were humans before they were humans???
or did we magically appear one day,,,

same goes for the whale issue

did the whale give birth to a cow or did it walk out of the ocean and magically turn into a cow???

or is it the reverse???


----------



## rightwinger

progressive hunter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely
> 
> We have seen evidence of evolution over time.....that is an observation
> We do not need to have been present to observe single cells evolving into human beings
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO WE HAVE'NT,,,
> 
> not one time have we seen anything  give birth to anything other than its own kind,,,
> 
> and not one time have we ever seen life form from non-living matter,,,
> 
> and those are the two main things evolution is based on,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have observed geologic strata from hundreds of billions of years
> Those strata show single cell and non complex creatures at the lowest levels with no complex creatures mixed in. The higher up the strata, the more complex the creature.
> Evolution is a fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that proves nothing other than something died,,,let alone it is billions of yrs old,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It proves that when they died, there were only non complex organisms dying with them
> No dinosaurs and no humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no it doesnt,,,
Click to expand...

Fraid it does my friend


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Anyone pretending to beg strangers for basic information about evolution instead of just looking it up for himself is a fraud and should not be acknowledged.


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Anyone who thinks that saying "nothing has been seen to give birth to a different species" speaks to evolutionary theory is not qualified to open his mouth about evolution, ever.


then educate us,,,,what were humans before they were humans???

give me something other than what someone else told you,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

rightwinger said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO WE HAVE'NT,,,
> 
> not one time have we seen anything  give birth to anything other than its own kind,,,
> 
> and not one time have we ever seen life form from non-living matter,,,
> 
> and those are the two main things evolution is based on,,,
> 
> 
> 
> We have observed geologic strata from hundreds of billions of years
> Those strata show single cell and non complex creatures at the lowest levels with no complex creatures mixed in. The higher up the strata, the more complex the creature.
> Evolution is a fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that proves nothing other than something died,,,let alone it is billions of yrs old,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It proves that when they died, there were only non complex organisms dying with them
> No dinosaurs and no humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no it doesnt,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fraid it does my friend
Click to expand...



maybe in your mind,,,some call that hallucinations,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Anyone pretending to beg strangers for basic information about evolution instead of just looking it up for himself is a fraud and should not be acknowledged.


I've tried looking it up,,,it seems its a secret,,,


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Anyone who says they have tried looking up basic information on evolution and says they could not find it is a shameless liar who should not be acknowledged.


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Anyone who says they have tried looking up basic information on evolution and says they could not find it is a shameless liar who should not be acknowledged.


and yet you cowardly respond in a separate comment thinking I wont see it or think youre responding to me,,,

all that just because you cant answer a simple question about a religion you hold so dear,,,


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

The fossil record of  the evolution of the whale is a great example of the predictions of evolutionary theory coming to bear as accurate. We can trace, through time and space, its ancestral line from a land mammal to a sea-going mammal.  We can watch as the nostrils move up the skull and become the blowhole.  We can watch as the walking limbs become flippers. We can watch as the body shape changes from that of  a standard, quadrupedal land mammal form to a fusiform shape. We can watch its ancestral line radiate out from the location of the earliest fossils.

Not just understanding this evidence, but also predicting it is one of the triumphs of evolutionary theory and of mankind in general.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Speaking of evolution.... maybe "The Greys" are real, and are just humans descended from early humans who were taken from earth and who have evolved over millions of years of living in outer space (or whose evolution was rushed/interfered with):


----------



## james bond

Mindful said:


> Maybe they have. But we can't see them, due to the limitations of our puny brains.



Even if they could see, close encounters from the 70s-80s do not count because it lacks scientific rigor today.

What would be rigorous scientific evidence is a response to something we send out in search of aliens.

Here's Carl Sagan's idea of rigorous scientific evidence.  I think it still holds true today.  "To be taken seriously, you need physical evidence that can be examined at leisure by skeptical scientists: a scraping of the whole ship, and the discovery that it contains isotopic ratios that aren't present on Earth, chemical elements from the so-called island of stability, very heavy elements that don't exist on Earth. Or material of absolutely bizarre properties of many sorts—electrical conductivity or ductility. There are many things like that that would instantly give serious credence to an account."

I think he says that he would accept anecdotal evidence from a wide group of people who described the same thing or from a trained observer, i.e. someone who has experience in what people see and report about ufos and aliens. 

You don't have to accept it, but I think a majority of people would.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> I think he says that he would accept anecdotal evidence from a wide group of people who described the same thing or from a trained observer, i.e. someone who has experience in what people see and report about ufos and aliens.


Uh...what? He literally says the opposite of that:

"To be taken seriously, you need physical evidence that can be examined at leisure by skeptical scientists"


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> We've never seen a star form. We have never watched an alpha particle leave an atomic nucleus. We have never even seen an electron. We have never seen an underground magma pocket. We have never seen the iron cores of the Earth or the Moon.
> 
> Some quacks like to insist that, if we haven't watched an event unfold with our human eyes, then we cannot find good basis to know it happened. Of course this is utter nonsense, and we would still be trying to figure out what causes syphilis, were this the case: Demons, or god's wrath? Or witches?
> 
> Just think if murderers could use, in their defense, the idea put forward by these quacks. "You can't PROVE my DNA was not deposited at the crime scene or even at your lab by magical fairies!"
> 
> Can you imagine them as kids? "Son, I told you no more chocolate, yet there you are with chocolate on your face." "Prove a magical fairy didnt put it there! Prove it has not always been there! You didn't see me eat chocolate!"  ....  Haha...total nuttery....
> 
> This quackery is a stupid talking point put forth by young earth creationists and is reserved only for the science that contradicts their strident dogma. They don't seem to mind the known half lifes of isotopes when they need radiation therapy for cancer; but use that knowledge to determine a fossil is 60 million years old, and suddenly it's time to pull out the "you dont know, because you weren't THERE, man!!!" argument.
> 
> An evolutionary microbiologist determines which strain of a particular bacteria is likely infecting their loved one, and they seize on the knowledge to help their loved one. Remind them that this knowledge was determined by assessing 100s of 1000s of years of evolution of the species, and they will bring out the fairies and sky daddies again.
> 
> Use our knowledge of mitochondrial DNA to find better organ donor matches, and the quacks are eternally grateful for saving the lives of their loved ones. Use that same knowledge to determine that two populations of a species have been separated for 1,000,000 years, and here come the  sky daddies and the "you weren't there!" nonsense.
> 
> And abiogenesis? Their heads explode. Apparently, god can do anything and everything...but he becomes Meatloaf, when it comes to abiogenesis. "But I won't do that!" Funny thing is, abiogenesis is what the bible describes. Life, from "not life". So apparently, god could and would "do that". But no, he wouldn't. Or wait, yes he would. Intellectual fumduckery....



Too many red herrings in your post.  For example, you equate God with a magical fairy, YECs with quackery and the fake science of evolution with knowledge.  I can equate you with a magical fairy or unkotare (not the usmb poster, but I found it means leaking poop in Japanese) and poof there goes your argument.  It just goes to show you are someone full of fallacies in your thinking, in this case association fallacies.  Is there anything there that passes 10th grade logic?  Bwahahahahaha.  No.  You're still below the threshold.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> For example, you equate God with a magical fairy


No, I conflate them, in the sense of proposing magic.  I don't equate fairies and unicorns, but I can still conflate them in the sense of introducing magic. That is not a red herring. Improper use of that term on your part.  The point is the introduction of magic.  A point you seem to squeamish to addres, much less mention...



james bond said:


> YECs with quackery




Correct, I am arguing that they are quacks.  It was literally the point.  That also would not be a red herring. I'm starting to think you don't actually know what that term means.





And you failed to address any point I made, nor could you state any of the logic.  which, basically, renders your entire post -- pay attention to the correct usage of the term to follow -- one big red herring.

go back and read the entire post again, as if I am talking directly to you.  because I, essentially, am.  You don't mind our knowledge of isotopic half-lives, right up until they contradict your strident YEC dogma.  That, sir, is a fact, and you know it. And it makes you absurd.


----------



## james bond

westwall said:


> I guess you never heard about the life forms around black smokers. A completely alien life form that requires no sunlight to exist. Over 800 different species have been discovered over the 40 years since they were discovered.
> 
> For people who claim to be all "sciency" you sure don't know very much.



I probably know more science than you in my little pinky.  Furthermore, there is no word as "sciency."  It would help if you used proper English and terminology so the science and technology crowd and I know what you are talking about.  Why don't you explain?  The science crowd and I can use a good laugh.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> I probably know more science than you in my little pinky.


Yes Mr. Science, your little pinky that in NO way evolved from a shared ancestor with other apes that also have little pinkies.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The fossil record of  the evolution of the whale is a great example of the predictions of evolutionary theory coming to bear as accurate. We can trace, through time and space, its ancestral line from a land mammal to a sea-going mammal.  We can watch as the nostrils move up the skull and become the blowhole.  We can watch as the walking limbs become flippers. We can watch as the body shape changes from that of  a standard, quadrupedal land mammal form to a fusiform shape. We can watch its ancestral line radiate out from the location of the earliest fossils.
> 
> Not just understanding this evidence, but also predicting it is one of the triumphs of evolutionary theory and of mankind in general.



Why don't you show a picture of these transitional whale fossils?  I bet I can demonstrate they could be something else.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Why don't you show a picture of these transitional whale fossils? I bet I can demonstrate they could be something else.



Yes, by introducing magic into your explanation.  Good for you, you can do what a 3 year old can do.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yes, your little pinky that in NO way evolved from a shared ancestor with other apes that also have little pinkies, Mr. Science.



How many times do I have to tell you God used similar parts by design?  And are you going to go into your DNA percentages again, i.e. statistical arguments to rebut?  Bottom line is even if chimps and humans have 96% same DNA, there are still 4% difference and out of the difference it equates to DNA expression of 29% same proteins and 71% different proteins.  Moreover, there are 35 million differences in molecules and 5 million places where the human DNA either has more or fewer bases than chimp DNA.  This is practical evidence of no common ancestor.  Yet, you do not have the transitional evidence of tailed to tailless monkeys, monkeys to chimps and gorillas, nor the transitional evidence of apes/chimps to humans.  I'm still waiting.


----------



## james bond

petro said:


> For all we know the cetaceans in our own oceans could be communicating complex mathematical formulas for pure entertainment. Larger brains and a lot longer on the evolutionary scale than us primates. We measure intelligence and sentience on a human perspective, but we are deaf, dumb and blind in our ability to perceive our true surroundings.



Sounds like a show from SpongeBobSquarePants.  We dominate crustaceans tho.







Do you see that triangular piece on the underside of the top crab?  Do you know what it is?

Do you want to try this experiment the next time you buy a live crab like a Dungeness?  After you get it home. why don't you grab that piece and see what the crab does?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> How many times do I have to tell you God used similar parts by design?


And there is the magic. First sentence. 

G'night shaman


----------



## petro

james bond said:


> petro said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all we know the cetaceans in our own oceans could be communicating complex mathematical formulas for pure entertainment. Larger brains and a lot longer on the evolutionary scale than us primates. We measure intelligence and sentience on a human perspective, but we are deaf, dumb and blind in our ability to perceive our true surroundings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a show from SpongeBobSquarePants.  We dominate crustaceans tho.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you see that triangular piece on the underside of the top crab?  Do you know what it is?
> 
> Do you want to try this experiment the next time you buy a live crab like a Dungeness?  After you get it home. why don't you grab that piece and see what the crab does?
Click to expand...

What does a crab have to do with a posting about large sea mammals? Cetaceans are Whales or Dolphins.


----------



## rightwinger

progressive hunter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have observed geologic strata from hundreds of billions of years
> Those strata show single cell and non complex creatures at the lowest levels with no complex creatures mixed in. The higher up the strata, the more complex the creature.
> Evolution is a fact
> 
> 
> 
> that proves nothing other than something died,,,let alone it is billions of yrs old,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It proves that when they died, there were only non complex organisms dying with them
> No dinosaurs and no humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no it doesnt,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fraid it does my friend
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> maybe in your mind,,,some call that hallucinations,,,
Click to expand...

Resorting to trolling now


----------



## rightwinger

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, your little pinky that in NO way evolved from a shared ancestor with other apes that also have little pinkies, Mr. Science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do I have to tell you God used similar parts by design?  And are you going to go into your DNA percentages again, i.e. statistical arguments to rebut?  Bottom line is even if chimps and humans have 96% same DNA, there are still 4% difference and out of the difference it equates to DNA expression of 29% same proteins and 71% different proteins.  Moreover, there are 35 million differences in molecules and 5 million places where the human DNA either has more or fewer bases than chimp DNA.  This is practical evidence of no common ancestor.  Yet, you do not have the transitional evidence of tailed to tailless monkeys, monkeys to chimps and gorillas, nor the transitional evidence of apes/chimps to humans.  I'm still waiting.
Click to expand...

Gods LEGO constructions get increasingly complex over time


----------



## rightwinger

james bond said:


> petro said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all we know the cetaceans in our own oceans could be communicating complex mathematical formulas for pure entertainment. Larger brains and a lot longer on the evolutionary scale than us primates. We measure intelligence and sentience on a human perspective, but we are deaf, dumb and blind in our ability to perceive our true surroundings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a show from SpongeBobSquarePants.  We dominate crustaceans tho.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you see that triangular piece on the underside of the top crab?  Do you know what it is?
> 
> Do you want to try this experiment the next time you buy a live crab like a Dungeness?  After you get it home. why don't you grab that piece and see what the crab does?
Click to expand...

Wow...sex education


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The fossil record of  the evolution of the whale is a great example of the predictions of evolutionary theory coming to bear as accurate. We can trace, through time and space, its ancestral line from a land mammal to a sea-going mammal.  We can watch as the nostrils move up the skull and become the blowhole.  We can watch as the walking limbs become flippers. We can watch as the body shape changes from that of  a standard, quadrupedal land mammal form to a fusiform shape. We can watch its ancestral line radiate out from the location of the earliest fossils.
> 
> Not just understanding this evidence, but also predicting it is one of the triumphs of evolutionary theory and of mankind in general.


so the cow magically turned into a whale,,,wasnt sure which direction it was,,,

why are you guys hiding all the evidence???


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> For example, you equate God with a magical fairy
> 
> 
> 
> No, I conflate them, in the sense of proposing magic.  I don't equate fairies and unicorns, but I can still conflate them in the sense of introducing magic. That is not a red herring. Improper use of that term on your part.  The point is the introduction of magic.  A point you seem to squeamish to addres, much less mention...
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> YECs with quackery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, I am arguing that they are quacks.  It was literally the point.  That also would not be a red herring. I'm starting to think you don't actually know what that term means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you failed to address any point I made, nor could you state any of the logic.  which, basically, renders your entire post -- pay attention to the correct usage of the term to follow -- one big red herring.
> 
> go back and read the entire post again, as if I am talking directly to you.  because I, essentially, am.  You don't mind our knowledge of isotopic half-lives, right up until they contradict your strident YEC dogma.  That, sir, is a fact, and you know it. And it makes you absurd.
Click to expand...

let me guess,,,

youre a big harry potter fan???

do you have your own magic wand yet??? so you can magically turn cows into whales,,,


----------



## rightwinger

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fossil record of  the evolution of the whale is a great example of the predictions of evolutionary theory coming to bear as accurate. We can trace, through time and space, its ancestral line from a land mammal to a sea-going mammal.  We can watch as the nostrils move up the skull and become the blowhole.  We can watch as the walking limbs become flippers. We can watch as the body shape changes from that of  a standard, quadrupedal land mammal form to a fusiform shape. We can watch its ancestral line radiate out from the location of the earliest fossils.
> 
> Not just understanding this evidence, but also predicting it is one of the triumphs of evolutionary theory and of mankind in general.
> 
> 
> 
> so the cow magically turned into a whale,,,wasnt sure which direction it was,,,
> 
> why are you guys hiding all the evidence???
Click to expand...

Your idiocy regarding evolutionary theory is amusing


----------



## progressive hunter

rightwinger said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fossil record of  the evolution of the whale is a great example of the predictions of evolutionary theory coming to bear as accurate. We can trace, through time and space, its ancestral line from a land mammal to a sea-going mammal.  We can watch as the nostrils move up the skull and become the blowhole.  We can watch as the walking limbs become flippers. We can watch as the body shape changes from that of  a standard, quadrupedal land mammal form to a fusiform shape. We can watch its ancestral line radiate out from the location of the earliest fossils.
> 
> Not just understanding this evidence, but also predicting it is one of the triumphs of evolutionary theory and of mankind in general.
> 
> 
> 
> so the cow magically turned into a whale,,,wasnt sure which direction it was,,,
> 
> why are you guys hiding all the evidence???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your idiocy regarding evolutionary theory is amusing
Click to expand...

 compared to claiming a cow just magically turned into a whale , I'm a genius,,, or at least not a gullible fool

show me proof is all I'm asking,,,


----------



## james bond

petro said:


> What does a crab have to do with a posting about large sea mammals? Cetaceans are Whales or Dolphins.



My bad, I thought you meant crustaceans.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And there is the magic. First sentence.



No magic.  The creator and creation science which was the dominant belief before the 1850s.


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fossil record of  the evolution of the whale is a great example of the predictions of evolutionary theory coming to bear as accurate. We can trace, through time and space, its ancestral line from a land mammal to a sea-going mammal.  We can watch as the nostrils move up the skull and become the blowhole.  We can watch as the walking limbs become flippers. We can watch as the body shape changes from that of  a standard, quadrupedal land mammal form to a fusiform shape. We can watch its ancestral line radiate out from the location of the earliest fossils.
> 
> Not just understanding this evidence, but also predicting it is one of the triumphs of evolutionary theory and of mankind in general.
> 
> 
> 
> so the cow magically turned into a whale,,,wasnt sure which direction it was,,,
> 
> why are you guys hiding all the evidence???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your idiocy regarding evolutionary theory is amusing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> compared to claiming a cow just magically turned into a whale , I'm a genius,,, or at least not a gullible fool
> 
> show me proof is all I'm asking,,,
Click to expand...


Magic is the realm of your bible tales and fables.

Noah was 600 years old?


----------



## james bond

rightwinger said:


> Gods LEGO constructions get increasingly complex over time



Not Legos.  I would think instead of complex, it's getting worse over time.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Magic is the realm of your bible tales and fables.
> 
> Noah was 600 years old?



God is superior, so I suppose what he does would look like magic to humans.

People lived much longer in the ancient times up to a thousand years.  After the flood, their lives were shortened to around 120 years max by radiation bombardment.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yes, by introducing magic into your explanation. Good for you, you can do what a 3 year old can do.



I didn't think you could find a picture.  Even if you did, I can use evolution to explain a different hypothesis.  Can I say you failed now?


----------



## james bond

"Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.  And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”  Genesis 1:26

We dom cetaceans, too.


----------



## Montrovant

james bond said:


> "Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.  And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”  Genesis 1:26
> 
> We dom cetaceans, too.



Actually, cetaceans would not fit into that statement.  They are not fish, nor birds, nor livestock, nor do they creep.  Maybe you could argue that "over all the earth" means every thing on the Earth, but then what's the point of all the specific examples before and after it?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> No magic. The creator and creation science which was the dominant belief before the 1850s.


So? It's still magic. Youre entire argument boils down to, "the scientists are wrong, because its actually magic". And I have no reaponse to that, nor coild I have any response. You introduced magic, so argument and evidence go out the window.


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> No magic. The creator and creation science which was the dominant belief before the 1850s.
> 
> 
> 
> So? It's still magic.
Click to expand...

just like evolution,,,


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Attention begging troll ^^


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Attention begging troll ^^


and thats all you have left since you cant back up anything you say with proof,,,,


cows magically turning into whales my ass


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

^^

Knows nobody said or claims that cows turned into whales

Desperately seeking attention


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ^^
> 
> Knows nobody said or claims that cows turned into whales
> 
> Desperately seeking attention


come on have the courage to comment directly and make your point and show your proof,,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ^^
> 
> Knows nobody said or claims that cows turned into whales
> 
> Desperately seeking attention




if not a cow what animal???

  why dont you walk us though how a land animal morphed into a whale,,,and of course show us the proof???


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Phylogenetics is the study of evolutionary relationship between groups of animals. 

One of the problems tackled by it is the relationship between whales and other, closely related mammals:


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Attention begging troll begs others to google stuff for him, so he can feel like he got some attention...


----------



## rightwinger

progressive hunter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fossil record of  the evolution of the whale is a great example of the predictions of evolutionary theory coming to bear as accurate. We can trace, through time and space, its ancestral line from a land mammal to a sea-going mammal.  We can watch as the nostrils move up the skull and become the blowhole.  We can watch as the walking limbs become flippers. We can watch as the body shape changes from that of  a standard, quadrupedal land mammal form to a fusiform shape. We can watch its ancestral line radiate out from the location of the earliest fossils.
> 
> Not just understanding this evidence, but also predicting it is one of the triumphs of evolutionary theory and of mankind in general.
> 
> 
> 
> so the cow magically turned into a whale,,,wasnt sure which direction it was,,,
> 
> why are you guys hiding all the evidence???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your idiocy regarding evolutionary theory is amusing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> compared to claiming a cow just magically turned into a whale , I'm a genius,,, or at least not a gullible fool
> 
> show me proof is all I'm asking,,,
Click to expand...


Check and MATE


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> No magic. The creator and creation science which was the dominant belief before the 1850s.
> 
> 
> 
> So? It's still magic. Youre entire argument boils down to, "the scientists are wrong, because its actually magic". And I have no reaponse to that, nor coild I have any response. You introduced magic, so argument and evidence go out the window.
Click to expand...


It's "magic" to you because of your puny brain.  It is conditioned to believe fake science and lies.  Those with better perspicacity have faith in the Christian God and the evidence in the Bible.  They understand a superior supernatural being can create the universe and adult humans and animals.  It means we know there are no aliens because God created humans in his image and made Earth special habitability.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> It's "magic" to you because of your puny brain


No, it's magic because it is magic. It violates determinism and therefore renders causality and evidence to be moot. So, by relying on magic, you have removed yourself from any discussion of the evidence.

And if you weren't so embarrassed of your faith, that wouldn't be a problem for you. But you are. Thus this embarrassing dog and pony show by you.


----------



## james bond

rightwinger said:


> Check and MATE



How do you explain the mass beachings of whales then?  Are they trying to get back onto land again but miss their legs haha?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> How do you explain the mass beachings of whales then?


Good grief you turds...look something up for yourself once in a while....


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's "magic" to you because of your puny brain
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's magic because it is magic. It violates determinism and therefore renders causality and evidence to be moot. So, by relying on magic, you have removed yourself from any discussion of the evidence.
> 
> And if you weren't so embarrassed of your faith, that wouldn't be a problem for you. But you are. Thus this embarrassing dog and pony show by you.
Click to expand...


And you quote mine what I said in order to avoid responding to the tough questions I brought up as usual.

I think it goes to show that I am or rather God is getting inside your head.  He was already there to begin with telling you that creation is true.  However, your conscious self will not allow it.  Thus, you believe the fake science and lies.  Since you won't provide a diagram, another big problem with whales is the evolution from Mesonychids to Pakicetus happened too quickly.  Remember, evolution needs long time.






Pakicetus lived about 52 million years ago, and modern whales evolved about 2 million years ago.  Thus, it took about 50 million years for Pakicetus to evolve into a modern whale.  The differences in shape between Pakicetus and modern whales is quite a bit and hard to believe it took only 50 millions years.  No wonder you didn't provide a diagram lol.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you explain the mass beachings of whales then?
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief you turds...look something up for yourself once in a while....
Click to expand...


Read my post #377.  I have to look up evolution for you just so you can explain.

After that, please explain the mass beachings.  It's not them trying to walk again because they're tired of the sea haha?

ETA:  What happened to the check and MATE haha?


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Phylogenetics is the study of evolutionary relationship between groups of animals.
> 
> One of the problems tackled by it is the relationship between whales and other, closely related mammals:


well I stand corrected because some one drew a picture,,,

I wanted proof not a drawing,,,anyone can make a picture that says just about anything,,,,

and this is a bigger case for common designer and not a common ancestor because you cant show how and when the  changes happened,,


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> And you quote mine what I said in order to avoid responding to the tough questions I brought up as usual.


Are you high? You only asked one question:

"Why do whales beach themselves."

And I mocked you for being at beat embarrassingly lazy, at worst dishonestly asking questions. 



james bond said:


> Since you won't provide a diagram


Other than the one I posted on this page? What the hell is wrong with your brain?



james bond said:


> Thus, it took about 50 million years forPakicetusto evolve into a modern whale.


You fool...the chart you posted clearly shows that Pakicetus did not evolve into whales, but split from their ancestral line long ago. Dude, seriously, are you high?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> After that, please explain the mass beachings.


No, you lazy, dishonest turd. Look it up yourself. I am not your assistant. If you think that phenomenon supports anything you say or undermines evolution, then make your own point, ya helpless little baby, and tell us why that is.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> ETA: What happened to the check and MATE haha?


Let's check the scoreboard:

Evolution remains an accepted fact. No, an uneducated slob who knows less than nothing about evolution screaming"it was magic!" on the internet poses no actual challenge to the most robust scientific theory in the history of mankind..

Thanks for asking!


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ETA: What happened to the check and MATE haha?
> 
> 
> 
> Let's check the scoreboard:
> 
> Evolution remains an accepted fact. No, an ineducated slob who knows less than nothing about evolution screaming"it was magic!" on the internet poses no actual challenge to the most robust scientific theory in the history of mankind..
> 
> Thanks for asking!
Click to expand...

liar,,,,


----------



## petro

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> After that, please explain the mass beachings.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you lazy, dishonest turd. Look it up yourself. I am not your assistant.
Click to expand...

I will.
It is believed powerful sonar is confusing marine life causing mass beachings. We have risen the noise levels in the oceans and sound is more powerful in water.
Does Military Sonar Kill Marine Wildlife?


----------



## james bond

Montrovant said:


> Actually, cetaceans would not fit into that statement. They are not fish, nor birds, nor livestock, nor do they creep. Maybe you could argue that "over all the earth" means every thing on the Earth, but then what's the point of all the specific examples before and after it?



You gonna explain cetaceans or even whales to ancient peoples haha?  I doubt that word was around back then as it was explained as great fish.  The Bible wasn't written as a science book.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you quote mine what I said in order to avoid responding to the tough questions I brought up as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you high? You only asked one question:
> 
> "Why do whales beach themselves."
> 
> And I mocked you for being at beat embarrassingly lazy, at worst dishonestly asking questions.
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you won't provide a diagram
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Other than the one I posted on this page? What the hell is wrong with your brain?
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, it took about 50 million years forPakicetusto evolve into a modern whale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You fool...the chart you posted clearly shows that Pakicetus did not evolve into whales, but split from their ancestral line long ago. Dude, seriously, are you high?
Click to expand...


That question wasn't to you but you could not help interrupting.

My questions for you were:
 1.  Why don't you show a picture of these transitional whale fossils? I bet I can demonstrate they could be something else.
 2.  How many times do I have to tell you God used similar parts by design? And are you going to go into your DNA percentages again, i.e. statistical arguments to rebut? Bottom line is even if chimps and humans have 96% same DNA, there are still 4% difference and out of the difference it equates to DNA expression of 29% same proteins and 71% different proteins. Moreover, there are 35 million differences in molecules and 5 million places where the human DNA either has more or fewer bases than chimp DNA. This is practical evidence of no common ancestor. Yet, you do not have the transitional evidence of tailed to tailless monkeys, monkeys to chimps and gorillas, nor the transitional evidence of apes/chimps to humans. I'm still waiting.

I'll stop here as I'm wasting my time typing lol.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> The Bible wasn't written as a science book


And yet, here you are, claiming it as scientific authority.

Yep, you're high. You can't even be coherent for 5 straight minutes.


----------



## litman

When I read the first post I had to laugh.  I would say that if he had been born earlier in history then he would have been strongly against going to far in ther ocean as he might fall off the world.  Same thinking.  Lack of knowledge does that to stupid people.  Gongrads to the original poster as he is a true flat worlder.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> 1. Why don't you show a picture of these transitional whale fossils?


Because you can look them up yourself. I am not your mommy.



james bond said:


> 2. How many times do I have to tell you God used similar parts by design?


It doesn't matter how many times. That will always represent you rejecting evidence and determinism and substituting magic. Which immediately removes you from any discussion involving evidence or causality. You have admitted you cannot account for the evidence, and have retreated to "it's magic!", placing you on intellectual par with 3 year olds.

I answered both of those questions earlier. But i understand how high you are, so i was kind enough to repeat myself.


----------



## Likkmee

Space is super dangerous for humanoidz !


----------



## Death Angel

konradv said:


> Years long missions could be carried out on ships with artificial gravity.


Never gonna happen.


----------



## james bond

petro said:


> I will.
> It is believed powerful sonar is confusing marine life causing mass beachings. We have risen the noise levels in the oceans and sound is more powerful in water.
> Does Military Sonar Kill Marine Wildlife?



Nice.  But it helps my argument that man doms cetaceans.

"Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” Genesis 1:26


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Why don't you show a picture of these transitional whale fossils?
> 
> 
> 
> Because you can look them up yourself. I am not your mommy.
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. How many times do I have to tell you God used similar parts by design?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter how many times. That will always represent you rejecting evidence and determinism and substituting magic. Which immediately removes you from any discussion involving evidence or causality. You have admitted you cannot account for the evidence, and have retreated to "it's magic!", placing you on intellectual par with 3 year olds.
> 
> I answered both of those questions earlier. But i understand how high you are, so i was kind enough to repeat myself.
Click to expand...

I've tried looking them up and came up with nothing,,,


----------



## Death Angel

WinterBorn said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Years long missions could be carried out on ships with artificial gravity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Cosmic Gama ray radiation that any Mars three year mission Astronauts would be exposed to, if they make it to Mars or are able to lift off of Mars once they land, could kill them all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Driving down your street could kill you too.
> 
> If you look at the technology that is a direct result of the space program, you will see it has been well worth the money.
> 
> If you don't want to go to space, don't go.
Click to expand...

I'm all for sending libs to mars.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

^^

Says the bible is not a science book.

Quotes it as scientific authority 3 minutes later.

Smokin' the Jesus crack...


----------



## Likkmee

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ^^
> 
> Says the bible is not a science book.
> 
> Quotes it as scientific authority 3 minutes later.
> 
> Smokin' the Jesus crack...


Ya like ribz ?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Likkmee said:


> Ya like ribz ?


Do you?


----------



## petro

james bond said:


> petro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will.
> It is believed powerful sonar is confusing marine life causing mass beachings. We have risen the noise levels in the oceans and sound is more powerful in water.
> Does Military Sonar Kill Marine Wildlife?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice.  But it helps my argument that man doms cetaceans.
> 
> "Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” Genesis 1:26
Click to expand...

We still don't dominate the bacterial world despite medical advances. All our livestock and the worlds wildlife is susceptible to the most ancient organisms.
We are open to destruction from organisms, global and cosmic disaster and even by our own hand. Only thing we dominate is our own arrogance.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ETA: What happened to the check and MATE haha?
> 
> 
> 
> Let's check the scoreboard:
> 
> Evolution remains an accepted fact. No, an uneducated slob who knows less than nothing about evolution screaming"it was magic!" on the internet poses no actual challenge to the most robust scientific theory in the history of mankind..
> 
> Thanks for asking!
Click to expand...


Hahahahahahahaha.  We're back to evolution is FACT cause I say so must point scoring.

I didn't even use the word magic until you did and pointed out it appears as magic to you because of your puny brain.  Some people here think aliens or cetaceans have superior brains compared to humans and are plotting to take over Earth because of Earthlings _puny_ brains.  That isn't magic to you?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

petro said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> petro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will.
> It is believed powerful sonar is confusing marine life causing mass beachings. We have risen the noise levels in the oceans and sound is more powerful in water.
> Does Military Sonar Kill Marine Wildlife?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice.  But it helps my argument that man doms cetaceans.
> 
> "Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” Genesis 1:26
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We still don't dominate the bacterial world despite medical advances. All our livestock and the worlds wildlife is susceptible to the most ancient organisms.
> We are open to destruction from organisms, global and cosmic disaster and even by our own hand. Only thing we dominate is our own arrogance.
Click to expand...

But nature does provide its own check on cataclysms via pathogens. When they become very deadly, they kill their hosts, limiting transmission.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> We're back to evolution is FACT cause I say so must point scoring.


No, you shameless little liar. I said it is an accepted fact, which is true and is quite independent of what i had for breakfast.



james bond said:


> I didn't even use the word magic


Nor will you ever, because you think your little brand of preferred magical fetish is "special", and you feel that "special" status is removed by lumping it in with all other magic. That's why it is up to people not steeped in and addled by your preferred little magical fetish to state it for what it is. We can't count on you for that honesty.


----------



## james bond

petro said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> petro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will.
> It is believed powerful sonar is confusing marine life causing mass beachings. We have risen the noise levels in the oceans and sound is more powerful in water.
> Does Military Sonar Kill Marine Wildlife?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice.  But it helps my argument that man doms cetaceans.
> 
> "Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” Genesis 1:26
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We still don't dominate the bacterial world despite medical advances. All our livestock and the worlds wildlife is susceptible to the most ancient organisms.
> We are open to destruction from organisms, global and cosmic disaster and even by our own hand. Only thing we dominate is our own arrogance.
Click to expand...


We dom the bacterial world, too.  We understand there are both healthy and harmful bacteria, and have a symbiotic relationship with them.  There are probably more bacteria we need than harmful ones.  In regards to germs, God warned us about cleanliness.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> We dom the bacterial world, too.


Well, I'm sure that is comforting to everyone with bacterial disease and all those who died from it this year. 

Or maybe that's just more magical horseshit based on an iron aged fairy tale ..


----------



## Flopper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is called the theory of evolution.  Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts.  It begins with an idea, a hypothesis that explains some observed phenomenon. If enough evidence accumulates to support this idea, it moves to the next step, known as a theory.  The theory and supporting evidence is published.  Other scientists publish there research which may support or oppose the theory.  Over time the theory becomes accepted or is rejected by scientists.  However, it always remains a theory subject to change.
> 
> The theory of evolution, really natural selection was published by Darwin over 180 years ago.  Since then there have been thousands of papers written supporting the theory most in form of papers and charts showing the evolution of various creatures including man.  Most, but not all the evidence is archaeological.
> 
> When we say evolution is a fact, what is mean is a well accepted theory which is supported by a preponderance of evidence.   The theory of evolution is taught as fact just as we teach the theory of gravitation or the theory of germs.  All of which have been useful explanations of observations.
> 
> 
> 
> but what facts are there that prove humans came from non living matter???
> 
> I think your using the word facts instead of what it should be,which is information,,,because there are no facts that even come close to show  life from nonliving matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been mixing up two entirely different theories, the Theory of Evolution, which explains the evolution of the species and *Abiogenesis*, a theory that attempts to explain the beginning life.  Evolution is well accepted among scientists and is treated as fact.
> 
> Abiogenesis at this point in time, does not address the creation of human life or any other species but rather the creation of organic compounds from non-organic compounds which are considered the building blocks of life.  Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life.  It's been demonstrated in the lab that most amino acids, the chemical constituents of the proteins used in all living organisms, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early earth.
> 
> In short, we understand a lot about the evolution of the species and how the building blocks of life could have been created on early earth.  However, we don't have any accepted explanation of how organic molecules developed into the first species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right. But it can be said that we have an accepted "effective theory" of abiogenesis: formation of life by selection. The most stable molecules persisted.  The most stable molecules which also replicated persisted even more. And the model that managed to do the best job of surrounding itself with protective layers persisted even further.  Etc., etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that organic molecules have been discovered in space has lead some to speculate that life may have begun off the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But it's odd speculation, as it would more seem to indicate that organic chemicals can be found all over the place. It would first seem to speak to the possibility that it coild happen "anywhere" and "elsewhere", than the possibility that it DIDN'T happen here and happened elsewhere instead.
> 
> Not that I find it implausible. But occam's razor seems to stand against the idea. And there are so many ideas to cpnsider.
> 
> Perhaps complex organics came here in droves during bombardment, and then were acted upon by selection to produce the first dna or life.
Click to expand...

I agree it does not seem likely because we know that environmental extremes in space and many planets will not support life as we know.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Says the bible is not a science book.
> 
> Quotes it as scientific authority 3 minutes later.
> 
> Smokin' the Jesus crack...



Like I said, Jesus has gotten in your head.  The second part of your first sentence is, "but science backs up the Bible."



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're back to evolution is FACT cause I say so must point scoring.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you shameless little liar. I said it is an accepted fact, which is true and is quite independent of what i had for breakfast.
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't even use the word magic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nor will you ever, because you think your little brand of preferred magical fetish is "special", and you feel that "special" status is removed by lumping it in with all other magic. That's why it is up to people not steeped in and addled by your preferred little magical fetish to state it for what it is. We can't count on you for that honesty.
Click to expand...


You didn't even answer my question, "Can I say you failed now?"  I think I can.  Your facts have de-evolved into fallacious thinking and ad hominem attacks.

YOU HAVE FAILED!!!


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We dom the bacterial world, too.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm sure that is comforting to everyone with bacterial disease and all those who died from it this year.
> 
> Or maybe that's just more magical horseshit based on an iron aged fairy tale ..
Click to expand...


I don't doubt people die from bacteria, but it would be worse if we didn't have the good bacteria and have a symbiotic relationship with them.  It's part of God's design as evolution does not explain the good bacteria.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> The second part of your first sentence is, "but science backs up the Bible."


No it isn't, you shameless little liar. Embarrassing.



james bond said:


> You didn't even answer my question, "Can I say you failed now?"


You can say whatever you like. Feel free to embarrass yourself all day. I suggest you, once again, declare victory over the global scientific community, so we can all laugh at you.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> It's part of God's design as evolution does not explain the good bacteria.


Yes it does. But, again, you know less about evolution science than a 6th grader does. So idiotic comment from you#4,763,290 about evolution surprises nobody.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Flopper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> but what facts are there that prove humans came from non living matter???
> 
> I think your using the word facts instead of what it should be,which is information,,,because there are no facts that even come close to show  life from nonliving matter
> 
> 
> 
> You've been mixing up two entirely different theories, the Theory of Evolution, which explains the evolution of the species and *Abiogenesis*, a theory that attempts to explain the beginning life.  Evolution is well accepted among scientists and is treated as fact.
> 
> Abiogenesis at this point in time, does not address the creation of human life or any other species but rather the creation of organic compounds from non-organic compounds which are considered the building blocks of life.  Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life.  It's been demonstrated in the lab that most amino acids, the chemical constituents of the proteins used in all living organisms, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early earth.
> 
> In short, we understand a lot about the evolution of the species and how the building blocks of life could have been created on early earth.  However, we don't have any accepted explanation of how organic molecules developed into the first species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right. But it can be said that we have an accepted "effective theory" of abiogenesis: formation of life by selection. The most stable molecules persisted.  The most stable molecules which also replicated persisted even more. And the model that managed to do the best job of surrounding itself with protective layers persisted even further.  Etc., etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that organic molecules have been discovered in space has lead some to speculate that life may have begun off the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But it's odd speculation, as it would more seem to indicate that organic chemicals can be found all over the place. It would first seem to speak to the possibility that it coild happen "anywhere" and "elsewhere", than the possibility that it DIDN'T happen here and happened elsewhere instead.
> 
> Not that I find it implausible. But occam's razor seems to stand against the idea. And there are so many ideas to cpnsider.
> 
> Perhaps complex organics came here in droves during bombardment, and then were acted upon by selection to produce the first dna or life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree it does not seem likely because we know that environmental extremes in space and many planets will not support life as we know.
Click to expand...

True. Though, we thought that about many areas of our own planet that we now find to be teeming with life .


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's part of God's design as evolution does not explain the good bacteria.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does. But, again, you know less about evolution science than a 6th grader does. So idiotic comment from you#4,763,290 about evolution surprises nobody.
Click to expand...



what a 6th grader knows is whats called indoctrination,,,


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

^^

poor little attention-begging troll is out of his depth


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ^^
> 
> poor little attention-begging troll is out of his depth


doesnt mean what I said was false,,,and is why you cowardly try to label me a troll when its you that cant back up his claim with proof


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Back to the topic....

NASA twins study shows a year in space causes thousands of genetic changes

"...Preliminary results had already filtered out since the experiment's completion in 2016, such as those pointing to the idea that space lengthens telomeres, the protective caps on chromosomes that generally shorten the older we get. Surprisingly, it seems that space is somehow protective against telomere shortening, which could help determine the risks and benefits of long-duration spaceflight...."


----------



## westwall

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not direct evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not accurate. We found our "smoking gun" over 5 years ago, in the CMB data, caused by gravitational weaves
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a bird that has morphed in such a way that it can longer be called a bird.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? My inability to show you 10 million years of the future on an internet message board would not lend any support the the false claim you made.
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is now backed up by a lot of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmm, no, still just a little.  And it still appears to be a fact that almost all the oil we ever found, are drilling now,  or could find is biotic.
Click to expand...






The CMB data you are referring to was discovered long ago.  That is that big noise from all around us i was referring to.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

westwall said:


> The CMB data you are referring too was discovered long ago.


But the signal of  gravitational waves from the Big Bang in the CMB was only found 5 years ago. It's direct evidence of the big bang.


----------



## Likkmee

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's part of God's design as evolution does not explain the good bacteria.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does. But, again, you know less about evolution science than a 6th grader does. So idiotic comment from you#4,763,290 about evolution surprises nobody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what a 6th grader knows is whats called indoctrination,,,
Click to expand...

Much like the 13 th grade that some refer to as " college"


----------



## westwall

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The CMB data you are referring too was discovered long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> But the signal of  gravitational waves from the Big Bang in the CMB was only found 5 years ago. It's direct evidence of the big bang.
Click to expand...






You are referring to the BICEP2 study right?  That is definitely some interesting research, but it has so far not been confirmed by other studies.  Until that happens it is a single point reference.  I do however look forward to more work being done in that area.  It would be pretty definitive support for the inflationary theory of the Universe.


----------



## Montrovant

james bond said:


> The Bible wasn't written as a science book.



Exactly!


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The CMB data you are referring too was discovered long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> But the signal of  gravitational waves from the Big Bang in the CMB was only found 5 years ago. It's direct evidence of the big bang.
Click to expand...

I read they arent calling it the big bang anymore,,,its now the big expansion,,,


----------



## Flopper

progressive hunter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific proof is an often used term of laymen but most scientists agree that there is really no such thing. Empirical sciences can furnish us with information about the world, but proofs do not occur, if by proof you mean an argument which establishes once and forever the truth of a theory.
> 
> There is certain a huge amount of evidence of evolution certainly more than a story of a supreme being creating the heavens and earth and all it's creatures. However, scientific proof, does not and can not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then they need to stop teaching it as fact,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is called the theory of evolution.  Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts.  It begins with an idea, a hypothesis that explains some observed phenomenon. If enough evidence accumulates to support this idea, it moves to the next step, known as a theory.  The theory and supporting evidence is published.  Other scientists publish there research which may support or oppose the theory.  Over time the theory becomes accepted or is rejected by scientists.  However, it always remains a theory subject to change.
> 
> The theory of evolution, really natural selection was published by Darwin over 180 years ago.  Since then there have been thousands of papers written supporting the theory most in form of papers and charts showing the evolution of various creatures including man.  Most, but not all the evidence is archaeological.
> 
> When we say evolution is a fact, what is mean is a well accepted theory which is supported by a preponderance of evidence.   The theory of evolution is taught as fact just as we teach the theory of gravitation or the theory of germs.  All of which have been useful explanations of observations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but what facts are there that prove humans came from non living matter???
> 
> I think your using the word facts instead of what it should be,which is information,,,because there are no facts that even come close to show  life from nonliving matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been mixing up two entirely different theories, the Theory of Evolution, which explains the evolution of the species and *Abiogenesis*, a theory that attempts to explain the beginning life.  Evolution is well accepted among scientists and is treated as fact.
> 
> Abiogenesis at this point in time, does not address the creation of human life or any other species but rather the creation of organic compounds from non-organic compounds which are considered the building blocks of life.  Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life.  It's been demonstrated in the lab that most amino acids, the chemical constituents of the proteins used in all living organisms, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early earth.
> 
> In short, we understand a lot about the evolution of the species and how the building blocks of life could have been created on early earth.  However, we don't have any accepted explanation of how organic molecules developed into the first species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if we know so much about it then what were humans before they were humans???
> or did we magically appear one day,,,
> 
> same goes for the whale issue
> 
> did the whale give birth to a cow or did it walk out of the ocean and magically turn into a cow???
> 
> or is it the reverse???
Click to expand...




> *What were we before we were humans?*


  That is the question that the study of human evolution is answering.  It began over 150 years ago and is still continuing.  We do not have a single evolutionary ancestor but rather  several which surely will increase as research continues.  That's why the following chart is labeled "Possible Pathways to Evolution of Man".  Today, our oldest discovered ancestor is Lucy, (Australopithecus afarensis) about 4 million years old, who is far more ape than than human with one very important characteristic, walking erect.  Our most recent environmental ancestor is Homo erectus who lived about a million years ago. Our Ancestral first cousin, Naenderthal Man lived about 40,000 years ago and is believed to have been driven to extinction by modern man tens of thousands of years ago.







The following is a video documentary about the search to discovery where we came from.  It's been dramatized a bit but the basic facts are correct.  It's actually pretty interesting.

I think you mentioned not being able to find scientific evidence of evolution.  Finding it is no problem.  Understanding it is something entirely different because it is technical and requires knowledge of a number of branches of science.  Scientific American has complied a rather extensive list of 6929 important scientific papers and articles on evolution that go back to 1849.  So if you're really interested, which I doubt, have at it.
Evolution


----------



## Flash

If we are going to spend much time in space we need lead space ships.  Radiation in space is bad.  Really , really bad.


----------



## progressive hunter

Flopper said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> then they need to stop teaching it as fact,,,
> 
> 
> 
> It is called the theory of evolution.  Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts.  It begins with an idea, a hypothesis that explains some observed phenomenon. If enough evidence accumulates to support this idea, it moves to the next step, known as a theory.  The theory and supporting evidence is published.  Other scientists publish there research which may support or oppose the theory.  Over time the theory becomes accepted or is rejected by scientists.  However, it always remains a theory subject to change.
> 
> The theory of evolution, really natural selection was published by Darwin over 180 years ago.  Since then there have been thousands of papers written supporting the theory most in form of papers and charts showing the evolution of various creatures including man.  Most, but not all the evidence is archaeological.
> 
> When we say evolution is a fact, what is mean is a well accepted theory which is supported by a preponderance of evidence.   The theory of evolution is taught as fact just as we teach the theory of gravitation or the theory of germs.  All of which have been useful explanations of observations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but what facts are there that prove humans came from non living matter???
> 
> I think your using the word facts instead of what it should be,which is information,,,because there are no facts that even come close to show  life from nonliving matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been mixing up two entirely different theories, the Theory of Evolution, which explains the evolution of the species and *Abiogenesis*, a theory that attempts to explain the beginning life.  Evolution is well accepted among scientists and is treated as fact.
> 
> Abiogenesis at this point in time, does not address the creation of human life or any other species but rather the creation of organic compounds from non-organic compounds which are considered the building blocks of life.  Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life.  It's been demonstrated in the lab that most amino acids, the chemical constituents of the proteins used in all living organisms, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early earth.
> 
> In short, we understand a lot about the evolution of the species and how the building blocks of life could have been created on early earth.  However, we don't have any accepted explanation of how organic molecules developed into the first species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if we know so much about it then what were humans before they were humans???
> or did we magically appear one day,,,
> 
> same goes for the whale issue
> 
> did the whale give birth to a cow or did it walk out of the ocean and magically turn into a cow???
> 
> or is it the reverse???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What were we before we were humans?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the question that the study of human evolution is answering.  It began over 150 years ago and is still continuing.  We do not have a single evolutionary ancestor but rather  several which surely will increase as research continues.  That's why the following chart is labeled "Possible Pathways to Evolution of Man".  Today, our oldest discovered ancestor is Lucy, (Australopithecus afarensis) about 4 million years old, who is far more ape than than human with one very important characteristic, walking erect.  Our most recent environmental ancestor is Homo erectus who lived about a million years ago. Our Ancestral first cousin, Naenderthal Man lived about 40,000 years ago and is believed to have been driven to extinction by modern man tens of thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following is a video documentary about the search to discovery where we came from.  It's been dramatized a bit but the basic facts are correct.  It's actually pretty interesting.
> 
> I think you mentioned not being able to find scientific evidence of evolution.  Finding it is no problem.  Understanding it is something entirely different because it is technical and requires knowledge of a number of branches of science.  Scientific American has complied a rather extensive list of 6929 important scientific papers and articles on evolution that go back to 1849.  So if you're really interested, which I doubt, have at it.
> Evolution
Click to expand...



first off lucy is a fraud because all the bones were found in different places and some miles away,,,and neanderthal man is just area specific and in no way mean a different species of man ,,,we even have current man with the same characteristics,,,
now to say they got driven to extension by modern man,,,well how the heck does that happen???
and how did modern man come to be??? were they just there one day or did something give birth to them???,,,if so what???

sorry but all of it is just crazy thinking without some sort of proof and none exist so far


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Flash said:


> If we are going to spend much time in space we need lead space ships.  Radiation in space is bad.  Really , really bad.


One idea:

CERN is Creating the Spaceship Shields of the Future


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

progressive hunter said:


> first off lucy is a fraud because all the bones were found in different places and some miles away,,


Lie. 



progressive hunter said:


> and neanderthal man is just area specific and in no way mean a different species of man


Lie.



progressive hunter said:


> we even have current man with the same characteristics,,,


Lie.


----------



## westwall

Flash said:


> If we are going to spend much time in space we need lead space ships.  Radiation in space is bad.  Really , really bad.







There are many ways to deal with the radiation problem.  One I favor is the ship generates its own magnetic field which directs the radiation around the ship.  Also using water as a barrier is another practical way to shield the astronauts.


----------



## Flopper

Flash said:


> If we are going to spend much time in space we need lead space ships.  Radiation in space is bad.  Really , really bad.


I think that is a problem that we will solve.  As we do longer space flights, better shielding will be developed.  We have much better radiation suits now than we had 10 years ago and there going to get better.  Most probably interstellar missions will not be launched from earth so using heavy metals such as lead will be much less of a problem.  By far the most challenging problem is going to be developing vehicles that are fast enough so people that leave our solar system aren't dead 10,000 years before they reach their destination.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible wasn't written as a science book
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, here you are, claiming it as scientific authority.
> 
> Yep, you're high. You can't even be coherent for 5 straight minutes.
Click to expand...


That's not what I claimed.  Science backs up the Bible like we found chickens came before the egg.  We also discovered there are no aliens from SETI, Fermi, Drake, fine tuning, the great filter and more.  We also found that evolution was based on circular reasoning which could make it a fallacy.  That backs up humans were made in the image of God.


----------



## Flash

Flopper said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we are going to spend much time in space we need lead space ships.  Radiation in space is bad.  Really , really bad.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is a problem that we will solve.  As we do longer space flights, better shielding will be developed.  We have much better radiation suits now than we had 10 years ago and there going to get better.  Most probably interstellar missions will not be launched from earth so using heavy metals such as lead will be much less of a problem.  By far the most challenging problem is going to be developing vehicles that are fast enough so people that leave our solar system aren't dead 10,000 years before they reach their destination.
Click to expand...


Creating an artificial magnetic field around the craft may be the best solution.

The only means of propulsion we have now is chemical energy and that ain't gonna get us very far.

If we are going Star Trekking around the universe we had better engineer a better propulsion system than chemical energy.

I honestly don't think we will go very into space. We would be pushing it to go visit Mars.  I doubt we will ever get much further than that.

We have been spoiled by 100 years of science fiction into thinking that we can get out there but I wouldn't count on it.


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> first off lucy is a fraud because all the bones were found in different places and some miles away,,
> 
> 
> 
> Lie.
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> and neanderthal man is just area specific and in no way mean a different species of man
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lie.
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> we even have current man with the same characteristics,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lie.
Click to expand...

youre a little sensitive about your religion arent you,,,


----------



## ABikerSailor

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible wasn't written as a science book
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, here you are, claiming it as scientific authority.
> 
> Yep, you're high. You can't even be coherent for 5 straight minutes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what I claimed.  Science backs up the Bible like we found chickens came before the egg.  We also discovered there are no aliens from SETI, Fermi, Drake, fine tuning, the great filter and more.  We also found that evolution was based on circular reasoning which could make it a fallacy.  That backs up humans were made in the image of God.
Click to expand...


Well, lets look at something.  If something is "alien" to Earth, that means it wasn't from around here, it came from somewhere else other than Earth.

While God did create the Earth, He is not from here.

Therefore, God is an alien, SETI, Fermi and Drake just haven't been able to take His picture yet.


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> first off lucy is a fraud because all the bones were found in different places and some miles away,,
> 
> 
> 
> Lie.
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> and neanderthal man is just area specific and in no way mean a different species of man
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lie.
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> we even have current man with the same characteristics,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lie.
Click to expand...

and explain to me how you can make these bones into this without a preconceived image,,,,


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We dom the bacterial world, too.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm sure that is comforting to everyone with bacterial disease and all those who died from it this year.
> 
> Or maybe that's just more magical horseshit based on an iron aged fairy tale ..
Click to expand...


Why don't you explain how they dominate us?  Give us some examples, how they dominate us and to what degree.

It sounds as if all you are doing is making assertions and not making a cogent argument that we can evaluate.

Can I say you failed again?  You've lost the last two arguments.


----------



## westwall

Flash said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we are going to spend much time in space we need lead space ships.  Radiation in space is bad.  Really , really bad.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is a problem that we will solve.  As we do longer space flights, better shielding will be developed.  We have much better radiation suits now than we had 10 years ago and there going to get better.  Most probably interstellar missions will not be launched from earth so using heavy metals such as lead will be much less of a problem.  By far the most challenging problem is going to be developing vehicles that are fast enough so people that leave our solar system aren't dead 10,000 years before they reach their destination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creating an artificial magnetic field around the craft may be the best solution.
> 
> The only means of propulsion we have now is chemical energy and that ain't gonna get us very far.
> 
> If we are going Star Trekking around the universe we had better engineer a better propulsion system than chemical energy.
> 
> I honestly don't think we will go very into space. We would be pushing it to go visit Mars.  I doubt we will ever get much further than that.
> 
> We have been spoiled by 100 years of science fiction into thinking that we can get out there but I wouldn't count on it.
Click to expand...





NASA has already tested an Ion Drive, and it worked very well.

Ion Propulsion
*Power On!*
*Ion Propulsion System*

*Ion Propulsion | Technology – NASA Solar System Exploration*


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's part of God's design as evolution does not explain the good bacteria.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does. But, again, you know less about evolution science than a 6th grader does. So idiotic comment from you#4,763,290 about evolution surprises nobody.
Click to expand...


I doubt you can explain how evolution explains good bacteria since you haven't reached 6th grade yet.


----------



## westwall

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> first off lucy is a fraud because all the bones were found in different places and some miles away,,
> 
> 
> 
> Lie.
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> and neanderthal man is just area specific and in no way mean a different species of man
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lie.
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> we even have current man with the same characteristics,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and explain to me how you can make these bones into this without a preconceived image,,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 259268
Click to expand...







That's not a compelling argument.





These Mountain Gorillas Are Better at Posing for Selfies Than Most Humans


----------



## james bond

Montrovant said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible wasn't written as a science book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly!
Click to expand...


And science backs up the Bible exactly.


----------



## westwall

james bond said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible wasn't written as a science book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And science backs up the Bible exactly.
Click to expand...







Ummm, right now modern archaeology is giving the Bible a 70% accuracy rate.  Still pretty good.  But far from "exactly".


----------



## progressive hunter

westwall said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> first off lucy is a fraud because all the bones were found in different places and some miles away,,
> 
> 
> 
> Lie.
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> and neanderthal man is just area specific and in no way mean a different species of man
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lie.
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> we even have current man with the same characteristics,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and explain to me how you can make these bones into this without a preconceived image,,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 259268
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not a compelling argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These Mountain Gorillas Are Better at Posing for Selfies Than Most Humans
Click to expand...



did I mention the bones werent even found in the same place and some a mile away


----------



## westwall

progressive hunter said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> first off lucy is a fraud because all the bones were found in different places and some miles away,,
> 
> 
> 
> Lie.
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> and neanderthal man is just area specific and in no way mean a different species of man
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lie.
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> we even have current man with the same characteristics,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and explain to me how you can make these bones into this without a preconceived image,,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 259268
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not a compelling argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These Mountain Gorillas Are Better at Posing for Selfies Than Most Humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> did I mention the bones werent even found in the same place and some a mile away
Click to expand...







Doesn't matter.  There are loads of problems with basing all of evolutionary theory on a single fossil assemblage.  Paleontology is mainly story telling.  That is why it is considered one of the softest of the sciences.


----------



## progressive hunter

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> first off lucy is a fraud because all the bones were found in different places and some miles away,,
> 
> 
> 
> Lie.
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> and neanderthal man is just area specific and in no way mean a different species of man
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lie.
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> we even have current man with the same characteristics,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and explain to me how you can make these bones into this without a preconceived image,,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 259268
Click to expand...


----------



## MarathonMike

52ndStreet said:


> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!


Robotics is progressing rapidly and there are some that are getting fairly close to matching human maneuverability. Once we have that, what would be the purpose of sending humans into space especially for missions such as exploring the surface of Mars?


----------



## james bond

Flash said:


> The only means of propulsion we have now is chemical energy and that ain't gonna get us very far.



NASA has bought the VASIMIR plasma propulsion engine in order to reach Mars in less than 40 days.  Can they build a space craft to do it?  Can it bring the astronauts back?  Will it have a radiation shield?

NASA’S New VASIMR PLASMA ENGINE could reach MARS in less than 40 days - Newfoxy

ETA:  Remember I told you about it years ago Fort Fun Indiana?


----------



## westwall

james bond said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only means of propulsion we have now is chemical energy and that ain't gonna get us very far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NASA has bought the VASIMIR plasma propulsion engine in order to reach Mars in less than 40 days.  Can they build a space craft to do it?  Can it bring the astronauts back?  Will it have a radiation shield?
> 
> NASA’S New VASIMR PLASMA ENGINE could reach MARS in less than 40 days - Newfoxy
> 
> ETA:  Remember I told you about it years ago Fort Fun Indiana?
Click to expand...





Will be cool if they can make it work.  The Ion Engines are tested.


----------



## Flash

james bond said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only means of propulsion we have now is chemical energy and that ain't gonna get us very far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NASA has bought the VASIMIR plasma propulsion engine in order to reach Mars in less than 40 days.  Can they build a space craft to do it?  Can it bring the astronauts back?  Will it have a radiation shield?
> 
> NASA’S New VASIMR PLASMA ENGINE could reach MARS in less than 40 days - Newfoxy
> 
> ETA:  Remember I told you about it years ago Fort Fun Indiana?
Click to expand...



There are other potential propulsion methods but they have to be engineered and put into operation and I will believe it when I see it.  

The VASIMER may work but it needs a lot of electricity.  A hellva lot.  You need a power source for that.  Maybe nuclear can provide it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Why don't you explain how they dominate us?


Why? Thats not the only alternative to them dominating us. Your logic is childlike. As in, not good.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> I doubt you can explain how evolution explains good bacteria


Of course i can. Anyone with even an intermediate grasp of evolution can. And only someone who knows less than nothing about evolution would say evolution does not explain it (hint: that's you).


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> And science backs up the Bible exactly.


This is a science thread in the science section. Please go pollute the religion section with your magical incantations, shaman.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

westwall said:


> Ummm, right now modern archaeology is giving the Bible a 70% accuracy rate. Still pretty good.


By what standard? That's horrible... Can you imagine a chemistry textbook with 70% accuracy? Haha...we would be
firing whatever retard wrote it...


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt you can explain how evolution explains good bacteria
> 
> 
> 
> Of course i can. Anyone with even an intermediate grasp of evolution can. And only someone who knows less than nothing about evolution would say evolution does not explain it (hint: that's you).
Click to expand...



the old you arent smart enough argument again,,,sorry we have eyes and can see evos are full of shit,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm, right now modern archaeology is giving the Bible a 70% accuracy rate. Still pretty good.
> 
> 
> 
> By what standard? That's horrible...
Click to expand...

considering evolution has a 0% rating its pretty good


----------



## westwall

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm, right now modern archaeology is giving the Bible a 70% accuracy rate. Still pretty good.
> 
> 
> 
> By what standard? That's horrible...
Click to expand...






By the standard that it is a very old book, and it was written by primitive people who had no idea of how to write a proper history book.  The Bible is basically a course in ancient history, and a basic hygiene treatise.   It does both pretty well.  Far better than the climatologists have been able to muster.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> ETA: Remember I told you about it years ago Fort Fun Indiana?


No. I remember reading about it for myself, though.


----------



## westwall

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm, right now modern archaeology is giving the Bible a 70% accuracy rate. Still pretty good.
> 
> 
> 
> By what standard? That's horrible...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> considering evolution has a 0% rating its pretty good
Click to expand...





Not zero.  Evolutionary theory has loads of observed data to support it.


----------



## progressive hunter

westwall said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm, right now modern archaeology is giving the Bible a 70% accuracy rate. Still pretty good.
> 
> 
> 
> By what standard? That's horrible...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> considering evolution has a 0% rating its pretty good
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not zero.  Evolutionary theory has loads of observed data to support it.
Click to expand...

not that i've seen,,,,


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

westwall said:


> By the standard that it is a very old book, and it was written by primitive people who had no idea of how to write a proper history book.


Haha, that's silly. Even the most illetarate goat herder can tell you what town he is in. 

And there were history texts written contemporary with the bible that dont suffer from the same amount of errors. That is because the bible is chock full of myths. Obviously.


----------



## westwall

progressive hunter said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm, right now modern archaeology is giving the Bible a 70% accuracy rate. Still pretty good.
> 
> 
> 
> By what standard? That's horrible...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> considering evolution has a 0% rating its pretty good
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not zero.  Evolutionary theory has loads of observed data to support it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not that i've seen,,,,
Click to expand...






That is because you choose to ignore it.


----------



## westwall

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the standard that it is a very old book, and it was written by primitive people who had no idea of how to write a proper history book.
> 
> 
> 
> Haha, that's silly. Even the most illetarate goat herder can tell you what town he is in.
> 
> And there were history texts written contemporary with the bible that dont suffer from the same amount of errors. That is because the bible is chock full of myths. Obviously.
Click to expand...






Of course it is.  However, any historian will also tell you that pretty much all myths have a kernel of fact at their origin.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

westwall said:


> Far better than the climatologists have been able to muster


This is the science section, not the conspiracy theory section.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

westwall said:


> However, any historian will also tell you that pretty much all myths have a kernel of fact at their origin.


But not a kernel of magic.


----------



## progressive hunter

westwall said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm, right now modern archaeology is giving the Bible a 70% accuracy rate. Still pretty good.
> 
> 
> 
> By what standard? That's horrible...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> considering evolution has a 0% rating its pretty good
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not zero.  Evolutionary theory has loads of observed data to support it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not that i've seen,,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is because you choose to ignore it.
Click to expand...

I have to see it first to ignore it,,,

so far all i've seen is speculation based on assumptions


----------



## james bond

westwall said:


> Ummm, right now modern archaeology is giving the Bible a 70% accuracy rate. Still pretty good. But far from "exactly".



It's 100%.  What modern archaeology?


----------



## petro

MarathonMike said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> Robotics is progressing rapidly and there are some that are getting fairly close to matching human maneuverability. Once we have that, what would be the purpose of sending humans into space especially for missions such as exploring the surface of Mars?
Click to expand...

Because its there.
Why do people still suffer Everest and pay handsomely for it?
The drive to explore and expand our horizons is deep rooted in humans and has got us to this point. No robot or drone cuts it for me. I want to see it personally if at all possible. Next evolutionary step is as a space faring species.
All life wishes to spread.


----------



## westwall

james bond said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm, right now modern archaeology is giving the Bible a 70% accuracy rate. Still pretty good. But far from "exactly".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's 100%.  What modern archaeology?
Click to expand...






No, it is around 70%.  Look up "The Bible as History."


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> But not a kernel of magic.



That's the fake science of evolution.


----------



## westwall

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Far better than the climatologists have been able to muster
> 
> 
> 
> This is the science section, not the conspiracy theory section.
Click to expand...






I agree, climatology is pretty much all conspiracy Theory, all the time.  Thanks for pointing that out!


----------



## Votto

52ndStreet said:


> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!



I'm going to have to disagree with you here.

I would love for people to go to Mars.

I hear they have a lot of nice red rocks, shiny ones too.

I think that is cool.


----------



## james bond

westwall said:


> No, it is around 70%. Look up "The Bible as History."



It's your argument.  Explain it or else you don't have an argument.  Just assertions.


----------



## westwall

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, any historian will also tell you that pretty much all myths have a kernel of fact at their origin.
> 
> 
> 
> But not a kernel of magic.
Click to expand...







I used the word FACT for a reason.


----------



## westwall

james bond said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is around 70%. Look up "The Bible as History."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's your argument.  Explain it or else you don't have an argument.  Just assertions.
Click to expand...






As are yours.  You rely on faith to drive your opinion that the Bible is infallible.  I rely on factual observations to tell me that while the Bible is remarkably accurate in some areas, it is far from accurate in others.  One example of where the Bible is wrong is in Deuteronomy where it is claimed the people of Canaan were eliminated.  DNA evidence has shown that to not be true.

There are many others.

*Continuity and Admixture in the Last Five Millennia of Levantine History from Ancient Canaanite and Present-Day Lebanese Genome Sequences*

*https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(17)30276-8*


----------



## Markle

52ndStreet said:


> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!



What agency, within the entire government of the United States has the greatest ROI, Return on Investment?


----------



## Markle

52ndStreet said:


> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!



Are you being facetious?  Is that your purpose here or is being a Troll your goal?

Do we have wings, or fins?

What goal do you have in mind if we shut down NASA?  Who would fill the void?


----------



## MarathonMike

petro said:


> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> Robotics is progressing rapidly and there are some that are getting fairly close to matching human maneuverability. Once we have that, what would be the purpose of sending humans into space especially for missions such as exploring the surface of Mars?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because its there.
> Why do people still suffer Everest and pay handsomely for it?
> The drive to explore and expand our horizons is deep rooted in humans and has got us to this point. No robot or drone cuts it for me. I want to see it personally if at all possible. Next evolutionary step is as a space faring species.
> All life wishes to spread.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the extreme risk AND the extreme cost involved in manned space exploration. With robots you don't need food, water, poop and pee disposal, heat, and a host of other accommodations for human space travel. If it is deemed feasible to setup a colony on the moon or mars, then go to the next phase and send people. As always JMO.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

westwall said:


> I agree, climatology is pretty much all conspiracy Theory, all the time. Thanks for pointing that out!


Oh look, a mod, trolling.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

westwall said:


> I used the word FACT for a reason.


And that reason might be that you're deluded and think magic is factual, as we know is true of a couple others in this thread. So I was just making sure.


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I used the word FACT for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> And that reason might be that you're deluded and think magic is factual, as we know is true of a couple others in this thread. So I was just making sure.
Click to expand...

thats funny,,,an evolutionist slamming magic,,,


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Someone call the shelter...there is an attack poodle on the loose....


----------



## petro

MarathonMike said:


> petro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> Robotics is progressing rapidly and there are some that are getting fairly close to matching human maneuverability. Once we have that, what would be the purpose of sending humans into space especially for missions such as exploring the surface of Mars?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because its there.
> Why do people still suffer Everest and pay handsomely for it?
> The drive to explore and expand our horizons is deep rooted in humans and has got us to this point. No robot or drone cuts it for me. I want to see it personally if at all possible. Next evolutionary step is as a space faring species.
> All life wishes to spread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm talking about the extreme risk AND the extreme cost involved in manned space exploration. With robots you don't need food, water, poop and pee disposal, heat, and a host of other accommodations for human space travel. If it is deemed feasible to setup a colony on the moon or mars, then go to the next phase and send people. As always JMO.
Click to expand...

Until we can reduce payload costs, any colony is a long way off. It would have to be self sustaining at some point.  I just believe at some distant future humankind will establish itself offworld. I see it as a long term inevitably.
Build the equatorial elevator...


----------



## Votto

The earth is just far enough from an abnormally small star with the moon to balance the climate out just so for our survival with a magnetic core to protect us from murderous radiation from space.

And we will live apart from the earth how exactly?


----------



## james bond

westwall said:


> One example of where the Bible is wrong is in Deuteronomy where it is claimed the people of Canaan were eliminated. DNA evidence has shown that to not be true.



After Moses’ death, Joshua was called by God to lead the people of Israel to take the promised land.  He delivered on this this, but even though soldiers held a long campaign against the Canaanites, there remained several pockets of Canaanites in Israel after the land had been divided among the twelve tribes.

"Failure to Complete the Conquest

27 bManasseh did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shean and its villages, or Taanach and its villages, or the inhabitants of Dor and its villages, or the inhabitants of Ibleam and its villages, or the inhabitants of Megiddo and its villages, for the Canaanites persisted in dwelling in that land. 28 When Israel grew strong, they put the Canaanites to forced labor, but did not drive them out completely.

29 cAnd Ephraim did not drive out the Canaanites who lived in Gezer, so the Canaanites lived in Gezer among them.

30 Zebulun did not drive out the inhabitants of Kitron, or the inhabitants of dNahalol, so the Canaanites lived among them, but became subject to forced labor.

31 eAsher did not drive out the inhabitants of Acco, or the inhabitants of Sidon or of Ahlab or of Achzib or of Helbah or of Aphik or of Rehob, 32 so the Asherites lived among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land, for they did not drive them out.

33 Naphtali did not drive out the inhabitants of fBeth-shemesh, or the inhabitants of Beth-anath, so they lived among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land. Nevertheless, the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh and of Beth-anath became subject to forced labor for them.

34 gThe Amorites pressed the people of Dan back into the hill country, for they did not allow them to come down to the plain. 35 The Amorites persisted in dwelling in Mount Heres, hin Aijalon, and in Shaalbim, but the hand of the house of Joseph rested heavily on them, and they became subject to forced labor. 36 And the border of the Amorites ran from ithe ascent of Akrabbim, from Sela and upward.
Judges 1:27-36

The remaining Canaanites were turned to forced labor, but many strongholds remained in the land causing trouble for the Israelis, so you missed some parts.  Maybe you believed the evil God theory too much.

If you want the complete explanation, then it's in AIG as grace was offered by God:

"Was grace offered to the Canaanites? Yes, for those who would repent and believe God. The very first battle in the Promised Land introduced us to Rahab, a Canaanite prostitute who lived in Jericho (Joshua 2:1). She and her family were spared from the destruction of the city and its inhabitants because of her new obedient faith in God (Joshua 6:25; Hebrews 11:31; James 2:25). What’s more, Rahab even has a prominent place in the genealogy of David and the Lord Jesus Christ (Matthew 1:5)."

Do Ancient Canaanite Remains Discredit the Bible?


----------



## westwall

Votto said:


> The earth is just far enough from an abnormally small star with the moon to balance the climate out just so for our survival with a magnetic core to protect us from murderous radiation from space.
> 
> And we will live apart from the earth how exactly?







Technology.  Just think, a short 150 years ago airplanes were things of myth and fantasy.  It took months to cross the USA.  Now we do it in mere hours.  Amazing what a little bit of tech will get you.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oh look, a mod, trolling.



Oh look, a troll trolling.  Hypocrites .


----------



## westwall

james bond said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> One example of where the Bible is wrong is in Deuteronomy where it is claimed the people of Canaan were eliminated. DNA evidence has shown that to not be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After Moses’ death, Joshua was called by God to lead the people of Israel to take the promised land.  He delivered on this this, but even though soldiers held a long campaign against the Canaanites, there remained several pockets of Canaanites in Israel after the land had been divided among the twelve tribes.
> 
> "Failure to Complete the Conquest
> 
> 27 bManasseh did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shean and its villages, or Taanach and its villages, or the inhabitants of Dor and its villages, or the inhabitants of Ibleam and its villages, or the inhabitants of Megiddo and its villages, for the Canaanites persisted in dwelling in that land. 28 When Israel grew strong, they put the Canaanites to forced labor, but did not drive them out completely.
> 
> 29 cAnd Ephraim did not drive out the Canaanites who lived in Gezer, so the Canaanites lived in Gezer among them.
> 
> 30 Zebulun did not drive out the inhabitants of Kitron, or the inhabitants of dNahalol, so the Canaanites lived among them, but became subject to forced labor.
> 
> 31 eAsher did not drive out the inhabitants of Acco, or the inhabitants of Sidon or of Ahlab or of Achzib or of Helbah or of Aphik or of Rehob, 32 so the Asherites lived among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land, for they did not drive them out.
> 
> 33 Naphtali did not drive out the inhabitants of fBeth-shemesh, or the inhabitants of Beth-anath, so they lived among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land. Nevertheless, the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh and of Beth-anath became subject to forced labor for them.
> 
> 34 gThe Amorites pressed the people of Dan back into the hill country, for they did not allow them to come down to the plain. 35 The Amorites persisted in dwelling in Mount Heres, hin Aijalon, and in Shaalbim, but the hand of the house of Joseph rested heavily on them, and they became subject to forced labor. 36 And the border of the Amorites ran from ithe ascent of Akrabbim, from Sela and upward.
> Judges 1:27-36
> 
> The remaining Canaanites were turned to labor, but many strongholds remained in the land causing trouble for the Israelis, so you missed some parts.  Maybe you believed the evil God theory too much.
> 
> If you want the complete explanation, then it's in AIG as grace was offered by God:
> 
> "Was grace offered to the Canaanites? Yes, for those who would repent and believe God. The very first battle in the Promised Land introduced us to Rahab, a Canaanite prostitute who lived in Jericho (Joshua 2:1). She and her family were spared from the destruction of the city and its inhabitants because of her new obedient faith in God (Joshua 6:25; Hebrews 11:31; James 2:25). What’s more, Rahab even has a prominent place in the genealogy of David and the Lord Jesus Christ (Matthew 1:5)."
> 
> Do Ancient Canaanite Remains Discredit the Bible?
Click to expand...





Deuteronomy said ELIMINATED.  You can try and parse words all you want, but---------- "But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:"

Is pretty comprehensive.  And it was provably wrong.  Shifting the goalposts to try and rationalize the fact that it was wrong only exposes your hypocrisy.


----------



## james bond

petro said:


> Until we can reduce payload costs, any colony is a long way off



Hm... it just takes a few fertile men and a women since we aren't as pure anymore, or did A&E go .


----------



## Markle

MarathonMike said:


> I'm talking about the extreme risk AND the extreme cost involved in manned space exploration. With robots you don't need food, water, poop and pee disposal, heat, and a host of other accommodations for human space travel. If it is deemed feasible to setup a colony on the moon or mars, then go to the next phase and send people. As always JMO.



Please share with us which agency, of all those in our government, has the greatest ROI?  (Return on Investment)


----------



## james bond

westwall said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> One example of where the Bible is wrong is in Deuteronomy where it is claimed the people of Canaan were eliminated. DNA evidence has shown that to not be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After Moses’ death, Joshua was called by God to lead the people of Israel to take the promised land.  He delivered on this this, but even though soldiers held a long campaign against the Canaanites, there remained several pockets of Canaanites in Israel after the land had been divided among the twelve tribes.
> 
> "Failure to Complete the Conquest
> 
> 27 bManasseh did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shean and its villages, or Taanach and its villages, or the inhabitants of Dor and its villages, or the inhabitants of Ibleam and its villages, or the inhabitants of Megiddo and its villages, for the Canaanites persisted in dwelling in that land. 28 When Israel grew strong, they put the Canaanites to forced labor, but did not drive them out completely.
> 
> 29 cAnd Ephraim did not drive out the Canaanites who lived in Gezer, so the Canaanites lived in Gezer among them.
> 
> 30 Zebulun did not drive out the inhabitants of Kitron, or the inhabitants of dNahalol, so the Canaanites lived among them, but became subject to forced labor.
> 
> 31 eAsher did not drive out the inhabitants of Acco, or the inhabitants of Sidon or of Ahlab or of Achzib or of Helbah or of Aphik or of Rehob, 32 so the Asherites lived among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land, for they did not drive them out.
> 
> 33 Naphtali did not drive out the inhabitants of fBeth-shemesh, or the inhabitants of Beth-anath, so they lived among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land. Nevertheless, the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh and of Beth-anath became subject to forced labor for them.
> 
> 34 gThe Amorites pressed the people of Dan back into the hill country, for they did not allow them to come down to the plain. 35 The Amorites persisted in dwelling in Mount Heres, hin Aijalon, and in Shaalbim, but the hand of the house of Joseph rested heavily on them, and they became subject to forced labor. 36 And the border of the Amorites ran from ithe ascent of Akrabbim, from Sela and upward.
> Judges 1:27-36
> 
> The remaining Canaanites were turned to labor, but many strongholds remained in the land causing trouble for the Israelis, so you missed some parts.  Maybe you believed the evil God theory too much.
> 
> If you want the complete explanation, then it's in AIG as grace was offered by God:
> 
> "Was grace offered to the Canaanites? Yes, for those who would repent and believe God. The very first battle in the Promised Land introduced us to Rahab, a Canaanite prostitute who lived in Jericho (Joshua 2:1). She and her family were spared from the destruction of the city and its inhabitants because of her new obedient faith in God (Joshua 6:25; Hebrews 11:31; James 2:25). What’s more, Rahab even has a prominent place in the genealogy of David and the Lord Jesus Christ (Matthew 1:5)."
> 
> Do Ancient Canaanite Remains Discredit the Bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deuteronomy said ELIMINATED.  You can try and parse words all you want, but---------- "But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:"
> 
> Is pretty comprehensive.  And it was provably wrong.  Shifting the goalposts to try and rationalize the fact that it was wrong only exposes your hypocrisy.
Click to expand...


Deuteronomy says "at that time."  "34 And we captured all his cities at that time and devoted to destruction2 every zcity, men, women, and children. We left no survivors."  Deuteronomy 2:34.

Joshua ELIMINATED those in the promised land.  "16 But uin the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, 17 but vyou shall devote them to complete destruction,1 the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded, 18 that wthey may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you xsin against the Lord your God."  Deuteronomy 20:16-18.

So the Canaanite remains do not descredit the Bible.  There's also a scientific argument presented in the AIG link which I didn't address, but didn't think there was a need to go further unless you want to argue science vs. science.

ETA:  That's fine.  It's better than arguing science with Fort Fun Indiana haha.


----------



## Flopper

progressive hunter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is called the theory of evolution.  Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts.  It begins with an idea, a hypothesis that explains some observed phenomenon. If enough evidence accumulates to support this idea, it moves to the next step, known as a theory.  The theory and supporting evidence is published.  Other scientists publish there research which may support or oppose the theory.  Over time the theory becomes accepted or is rejected by scientists.  However, it always remains a theory subject to change.
> 
> The theory of evolution, really natural selection was published by Darwin over 180 years ago.  Since then there have been thousands of papers written supporting the theory most in form of papers and charts showing the evolution of various creatures including man.  Most, but not all the evidence is archaeological.
> 
> When we say evolution is a fact, what is mean is a well accepted theory which is supported by a preponderance of evidence.   The theory of evolution is taught as fact just as we teach the theory of gravitation or the theory of germs.  All of which have been useful explanations of observations.
> 
> 
> 
> but what facts are there that prove humans came from non living matter???
> 
> I think your using the word facts instead of what it should be,which is information,,,because there are no facts that even come close to show  life from nonliving matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been mixing up two entirely different theories, the Theory of Evolution, which explains the evolution of the species and *Abiogenesis*, a theory that attempts to explain the beginning life.  Evolution is well accepted among scientists and is treated as fact.
> 
> Abiogenesis at this point in time, does not address the creation of human life or any other species but rather the creation of organic compounds from non-organic compounds which are considered the building blocks of life.  Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life.  It's been demonstrated in the lab that most amino acids, the chemical constituents of the proteins used in all living organisms, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early earth.
> 
> In short, we understand a lot about the evolution of the species and how the building blocks of life could have been created on early earth.  However, we don't have any accepted explanation of how organic molecules developed into the first species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if we know so much about it then what were humans before they were humans???
> or did we magically appear one day,,,
> 
> same goes for the whale issue
> 
> did the whale give birth to a cow or did it walk out of the ocean and magically turn into a cow???
> 
> or is it the reverse???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What were we before we were humans?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the question that the study of human evolution is answering.  It began over 150 years ago and is still continuing.  We do not have a single evolutionary ancestor but rather  several which surely will increase as research continues.  That's why the following chart is labeled "Possible Pathways to Evolution of Man".  Today, our oldest discovered ancestor is Lucy, (Australopithecus afarensis) about 4 million years old, who is far more ape than than human with one very important characteristic, walking erect.  Our most recent environmental ancestor is Homo erectus who lived about a million years ago. Our Ancestral first cousin, Naenderthal Man lived about 40,000 years ago and is believed to have been driven to extinction by modern man tens of thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following is a video documentary about the search to discovery where we came from.  It's been dramatized a bit but the basic facts are correct.  It's actually pretty interesting.
> 
> I think you mentioned not being able to find scientific evidence of evolution.  Finding it is no problem.  Understanding it is something entirely different because it is technical and requires knowledge of a number of branches of science.  Scientific American has complied a rather extensive list of 6929 important scientific papers and articles on evolution that go back to 1849.  So if you're really interested, which I doubt, have at it.
> Evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> first off lucy is a fraud because all the bones were found in different places and some miles away,,,and neanderthal man is just area specific and in no way mean a different species of man ,,,we even have current man with the same characteristics,,,
> now to say they got driven to extension by modern man,,,well how the heck does that happen???
> and how did modern man come to be??? were they just there one day or did something give birth to them???,,,if so what???
> 
> sorry but all of it is just crazy thinking without some sort of proof and none exist so far
Click to expand...

So all these scientists from different time periods and different countries are part of a great conspiracy. The over 300 fossils of neanderthal man were all a hoax.  And all the DNA evidence linking the fossils are all wrong. And the radiometric dating methods are also wrong.  And I haven't even mention all research on evolution of other species.

Lucy was discovered in 1974 in Africa, near the village Hadar in the *Awash Valley* of the *Afar Triangle* in Ethiopia.  The area where excavation was done looks like it's about 50 by 100 feet.  There is now a monument erected on spot she was found.

So much of skeleton was recovered that scientist were able to put together the probably details surrounding her death.

*CT scans revealed Lucy's 3.18-million-year-old bones had fractures*
*She fell from a height of more than 40ft, hitting the ground at 35mph*
*Upper arm fractures suggest she stretched out her arms to break her fall*
*Without evidence of healing, injuries likely occurred just before she died*
*The study offers unusual evidence for tree dwelling in the extinct species known as Australopithecus afarensis *
 
This recent picture shows the site where12 hominid fossils belonging... News Photo - Getty Images
Lucy's painful last moments revealed: 3.2 million-year-old fossil of early human suggests she died after falling 40ft from a tree | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Flopper

james bond said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only means of propulsion we have now is chemical energy and that ain't gonna get us very far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NASA has bought the VASIMIR plasma propulsion engine in order to reach Mars in less than 40 days.  Can they build a space craft to do it?  Can it bring the astronauts back?  Will it have a radiation shield?
> 
> NASA’S New VASIMR PLASMA ENGINE could reach MARS in less than 40 days - Newfoxy
> 
> ETA:  Remember I told you about it years ago Fort Fun Indiana?
Click to expand...

Are there two missions to Mars planned? It seems I read about a mission being planned for the 2030's that was going to be a one way colonization trip.


----------



## Flopper

petro said:


> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> petro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> Robotics is progressing rapidly and there are some that are getting fairly close to matching human maneuverability. Once we have that, what would be the purpose of sending humans into space especially for missions such as exploring the surface of Mars?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because its there.
> Why do people still suffer Everest and pay handsomely for it?
> The drive to explore and expand our horizons is deep rooted in humans and has got us to this point. No robot or drone cuts it for me. I want to see it personally if at all possible. Next evolutionary step is as a space faring species.
> All life wishes to spread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm talking about the extreme risk AND the extreme cost involved in manned space exploration. With robots you don't need food, water, poop and pee disposal, heat, and a host of other accommodations for human space travel. If it is deemed feasible to setup a colony on the moon or mars, then go to the next phase and send people. As always JMO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until we can reduce payload costs, any colony is a long way off. It would have to be self sustaining at some point.  I just believe at some distant future humankind will establish itself offworld. I see it as a long term inevitably.
> Build the equatorial elevator...
> View attachment 259281
Click to expand...

I just can't believe a colony could be self sustaining, maybe for few months or a year but not indefinitely.  There's just too many things that can happen over a long period of time.  There would have to be some sort on going support, at least until such time that the colony was large and well developed.  Even then, shit can happen.

We'll make off world eventually, if we don't blow ourselves up or destroy the planet.


----------



## Flopper

How many discussions do we have in this thread?  It began as a discussion of whether man should go into space which quickly became a discussion man vs unmanned space missions and somehow became a discussion on evolution and then a discussion of the bible, and now colonization of Mars. I'm ok with it but It's probably violating some rules.


----------



## progressive hunter

Flopper said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> but what facts are there that prove humans came from non living matter???
> 
> I think your using the word facts instead of what it should be,which is information,,,because there are no facts that even come close to show  life from nonliving matter
> 
> 
> 
> You've been mixing up two entirely different theories, the Theory of Evolution, which explains the evolution of the species and *Abiogenesis*, a theory that attempts to explain the beginning life.  Evolution is well accepted among scientists and is treated as fact.
> 
> Abiogenesis at this point in time, does not address the creation of human life or any other species but rather the creation of organic compounds from non-organic compounds which are considered the building blocks of life.  Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life.  It's been demonstrated in the lab that most amino acids, the chemical constituents of the proteins used in all living organisms, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early earth.
> 
> In short, we understand a lot about the evolution of the species and how the building blocks of life could have been created on early earth.  However, we don't have any accepted explanation of how organic molecules developed into the first species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if we know so much about it then what were humans before they were humans???
> or did we magically appear one day,,,
> 
> same goes for the whale issue
> 
> did the whale give birth to a cow or did it walk out of the ocean and magically turn into a cow???
> 
> or is it the reverse???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What were we before we were humans?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the question that the study of human evolution is answering.  It began over 150 years ago and is still continuing.  We do not have a single evolutionary ancestor but rather  several which surely will increase as research continues.  That's why the following chart is labeled "Possible Pathways to Evolution of Man".  Today, our oldest discovered ancestor is Lucy, (Australopithecus afarensis) about 4 million years old, who is far more ape than than human with one very important characteristic, walking erect.  Our most recent environmental ancestor is Homo erectus who lived about a million years ago. Our Ancestral first cousin, Naenderthal Man lived about 40,000 years ago and is believed to have been driven to extinction by modern man tens of thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following is a video documentary about the search to discovery where we came from.  It's been dramatized a bit but the basic facts are correct.  It's actually pretty interesting.
> 
> I think you mentioned not being able to find scientific evidence of evolution.  Finding it is no problem.  Understanding it is something entirely different because it is technical and requires knowledge of a number of branches of science.  Scientific American has complied a rather extensive list of 6929 important scientific papers and articles on evolution that go back to 1849.  So if you're really interested, which I doubt, have at it.
> Evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> first off lucy is a fraud because all the bones were found in different places and some miles away,,,and neanderthal man is just area specific and in no way mean a different species of man ,,,we even have current man with the same characteristics,,,
> now to say they got driven to extension by modern man,,,well how the heck does that happen???
> and how did modern man come to be??? were they just there one day or did something give birth to them???,,,if so what???
> 
> sorry but all of it is just crazy thinking without some sort of proof and none exist so far
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So all these scientists from different time periods and different countries are part of a great conspiracy. The over 300 fossils of neanderthal man were all a hoax.  And all the DNA evidence linking the fossils are all wrong. And the radiometric dating methods are also wrong.  And I haven't even mention all research on evolution of other species.
> 
> Lucy was discovered in 1974 in Africa, near the village Hadar in the *Awash Valley* of the *Afar Triangle* in Ethiopia.  The area where excavation was done looks like it's about 50 by 100 feet.  There is now a monument erected on spot she was found.
> 
> So much of skeleton was recovered that scientist were able to put together the probably details surrounding her death.
> 
> *CT scans revealed Lucy's 3.18-million-year-old bones had fractures*
> *She fell from a height of more than 40ft, hitting the ground at 35mph*
> *Upper arm fractures suggest she stretched out her arms to break her fall*
> *Without evidence of healing, injuries likely occurred just before she died*
> *The study offers unusual evidence for tree dwelling in the extinct species known as Australopithecus afarensis *
> 
> This recent picture shows the site where12 hominid fossils belonging... News Photo - Getty Images
> Lucy's painful last moments revealed: 3.2 million-year-old fossil of early human suggests she died after falling 40ft from a tree | Daily Mail Online
Click to expand...



I never said the first part and you need to educate yourself on lucy,,,did you know the guy that found them had them sitting in his office for 4 yrs before he told anybody???

40 ft huh,,, how do they know that 3.2 million yrs later,,,and from a treee no less,,,,and pictures from 40 yrs later mean nothing 


sorry but like I said,,,a lot of speculation based on assumptions


and thats not even getting into the dating process,,,where there is no way to date 3.2 million yrs


----------



## Flopper

progressive hunter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've been mixing up two entirely different theories, the Theory of Evolution, which explains the evolution of the species and *Abiogenesis*, a theory that attempts to explain the beginning life.  Evolution is well accepted among scientists and is treated as fact.
> 
> Abiogenesis at this point in time, does not address the creation of human life or any other species but rather the creation of organic compounds from non-organic compounds which are considered the building blocks of life.  Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life.  It's been demonstrated in the lab that most amino acids, the chemical constituents of the proteins used in all living organisms, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early earth.
> 
> In short, we understand a lot about the evolution of the species and how the building blocks of life could have been created on early earth.  However, we don't have any accepted explanation of how organic molecules developed into the first species.
> 
> 
> 
> if we know so much about it then what were humans before they were humans???
> or did we magically appear one day,,,
> 
> same goes for the whale issue
> 
> did the whale give birth to a cow or did it walk out of the ocean and magically turn into a cow???
> 
> or is it the reverse???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What were we before we were humans?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the question that the study of human evolution is answering.  It began over 150 years ago and is still continuing.  We do not have a single evolutionary ancestor but rather  several which surely will increase as research continues.  That's why the following chart is labeled "Possible Pathways to Evolution of Man".  Today, our oldest discovered ancestor is Lucy, (Australopithecus afarensis) about 4 million years old, who is far more ape than than human with one very important characteristic, walking erect.  Our most recent environmental ancestor is Homo erectus who lived about a million years ago. Our Ancestral first cousin, Naenderthal Man lived about 40,000 years ago and is believed to have been driven to extinction by modern man tens of thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following is a video documentary about the search to discovery where we came from.  It's been dramatized a bit but the basic facts are correct.  It's actually pretty interesting.
> 
> I think you mentioned not being able to find scientific evidence of evolution.  Finding it is no problem.  Understanding it is something entirely different because it is technical and requires knowledge of a number of branches of science.  Scientific American has complied a rather extensive list of 6929 important scientific papers and articles on evolution that go back to 1849.  So if you're really interested, which I doubt, have at it.
> Evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> first off lucy is a fraud because all the bones were found in different places and some miles away,,,and neanderthal man is just area specific and in no way mean a different species of man ,,,we even have current man with the same characteristics,,,
> now to say they got driven to extension by modern man,,,well how the heck does that happen???
> and how did modern man come to be??? were they just there one day or did something give birth to them???,,,if so what???
> 
> sorry but all of it is just crazy thinking without some sort of proof and none exist so far
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So all these scientists from different time periods and different countries are part of a great conspiracy. The over 300 fossils of neanderthal man were all a hoax.  And all the DNA evidence linking the fossils are all wrong. And the radiometric dating methods are also wrong.  And I haven't even mention all research on evolution of other species.
> 
> Lucy was discovered in 1974 in Africa, near the village Hadar in the *Awash Valley* of the *Afar Triangle* in Ethiopia.  The area where excavation was done looks like it's about 50 by 100 feet.  There is now a monument erected on spot she was found.
> 
> So much of skeleton was recovered that scientist were able to put together the probably details surrounding her death.
> 
> *CT scans revealed Lucy's 3.18-million-year-old bones had fractures*
> *She fell from a height of more than 40ft, hitting the ground at 35mph*
> *Upper arm fractures suggest she stretched out her arms to break her fall*
> *Without evidence of healing, injuries likely occurred just before she died*
> *The study offers unusual evidence for tree dwelling in the extinct species known as Australopithecus afarensis *
> 
> This recent picture shows the site where12 hominid fossils belonging... News Photo - Getty Images
> Lucy's painful last moments revealed: 3.2 million-year-old fossil of early human suggests she died after falling 40ft from a tree | Daily Mail Online
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never said the first part and you need to educate yourself on lucy,,,did you know the guy that found them had them sitting in his office for 4 yrs before he told anybody???
> 
> 40 ft huh,,, how do they know that 3.2 million yrs later,,,and from a treee no less,,,,and pictures from 40 yrs later mean nothing
> 
> 
> sorry but like I said,,,a lot of speculation based on assumptions
> 
> 
> and thats not even getting into the dating process,,,where there is no way to date 3.2 million yrs
Click to expand...

I think further discussion on this topic is fruitless.  I suggest you try conspiracy theories.  We need to focus on the actual topic of this thread.


----------



## MarathonMike

Flopper said:


> petro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> petro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity  of space. All the money being spent  on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!
> 
> 
> 
> Robotics is progressing rapidly and there are some that are getting fairly close to matching human maneuverability. Once we have that, what would be the purpose of sending humans into space especially for missions such as exploring the surface of Mars?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because its there.
> Why do people still suffer Everest and pay handsomely for it?
> The drive to explore and expand our horizons is deep rooted in humans and has got us to this point. No robot or drone cuts it for me. I want to see it personally if at all possible. Next evolutionary step is as a space faring species.
> All life wishes to spread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm talking about the extreme risk AND the extreme cost involved in manned space exploration. With robots you don't need food, water, poop and pee disposal, heat, and a host of other accommodations for human space travel. If it is deemed feasible to setup a colony on the moon or mars, then go to the next phase and send people. As always JMO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until we can reduce payload costs, any colony is a long way off. It would have to be self sustaining at some point.  I just believe at some distant future humankind will establish itself offworld. I see it as a long term inevitably.
> Build the equatorial elevator...
> View attachment 259281
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just can't believe a colony could be self sustaining, maybe for few months or a year but not indefinitely.  There's just too many things that can happen over a long period of time.  There would have to be some sort on going support, at least until such time that the colony was large and well developed.  Even then, shit can happen.
> 
> We'll make off world eventually, if we don't blow ourselves up or destroy the planet.
Click to expand...

It's all about the water. If they find substantial fresh water on the Moon or Mars then it's entirely feasible for a self-sustaining colony.


----------



## petro

MarathonMike said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> petro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> petro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Robotics is progressing rapidly and there are some that are getting fairly close to matching human maneuverability. Once we have that, what would be the purpose of sending humans into space especially for missions such as exploring the surface of Mars?
> 
> 
> 
> Because its there.
> Why do people still suffer Everest and pay handsomely for it?
> The drive to explore and expand our horizons is deep rooted in humans and has got us to this point. No robot or drone cuts it for me. I want to see it personally if at all possible. Next evolutionary step is as a space faring species.
> All life wishes to spread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm talking about the extreme risk AND the extreme cost involved in manned space exploration. With robots you don't need food, water, poop and pee disposal, heat, and a host of other accommodations for human space travel. If it is deemed feasible to setup a colony on the moon or mars, then go to the next phase and send people. As always JMO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until we can reduce payload costs, any colony is a long way off. It would have to be self sustaining at some point.  I just believe at some distant future humankind will establish itself offworld. I see it as a long term inevitably.
> Build the equatorial elevator...
> View attachment 259281
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just can't believe a colony could be self sustaining, maybe for few months or a year but not indefinitely.  There's just too many things that can happen over a long period of time.  There would have to be some sort on going support, at least until such time that the colony was large and well developed.  Even then, shit can happen.
> 
> We'll make off world eventually, if we don't blow ourselves up or destroy the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's all about the water. If they find substantial fresh water on the Moon or Mars then it's entirely feasible for a self-sustaining colony.
Click to expand...

Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars
Europa: Ocean World – NASA's Europa Clipper
Robots doing the preliminary work. Much like sherpas.
Humans will visit these places in time.


----------



## progressive hunter

Flopper said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> if we know so much about it then what were humans before they were humans???
> or did we magically appear one day,,,
> 
> same goes for the whale issue
> 
> did the whale give birth to a cow or did it walk out of the ocean and magically turn into a cow???
> 
> or is it the reverse???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What were we before we were humans?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the question that the study of human evolution is answering.  It began over 150 years ago and is still continuing.  We do not have a single evolutionary ancestor but rather  several which surely will increase as research continues.  That's why the following chart is labeled "Possible Pathways to Evolution of Man".  Today, our oldest discovered ancestor is Lucy, (Australopithecus afarensis) about 4 million years old, who is far more ape than than human with one very important characteristic, walking erect.  Our most recent environmental ancestor is Homo erectus who lived about a million years ago. Our Ancestral first cousin, Naenderthal Man lived about 40,000 years ago and is believed to have been driven to extinction by modern man tens of thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following is a video documentary about the search to discovery where we came from.  It's been dramatized a bit but the basic facts are correct.  It's actually pretty interesting.
> 
> I think you mentioned not being able to find scientific evidence of evolution.  Finding it is no problem.  Understanding it is something entirely different because it is technical and requires knowledge of a number of branches of science.  Scientific American has complied a rather extensive list of 6929 important scientific papers and articles on evolution that go back to 1849.  So if you're really interested, which I doubt, have at it.
> Evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> first off lucy is a fraud because all the bones were found in different places and some miles away,,,and neanderthal man is just area specific and in no way mean a different species of man ,,,we even have current man with the same characteristics,,,
> now to say they got driven to extension by modern man,,,well how the heck does that happen???
> and how did modern man come to be??? were they just there one day or did something give birth to them???,,,if so what???
> 
> sorry but all of it is just crazy thinking without some sort of proof and none exist so far
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So all these scientists from different time periods and different countries are part of a great conspiracy. The over 300 fossils of neanderthal man were all a hoax.  And all the DNA evidence linking the fossils are all wrong. And the radiometric dating methods are also wrong.  And I haven't even mention all research on evolution of other species.
> 
> Lucy was discovered in 1974 in Africa, near the village Hadar in the *Awash Valley* of the *Afar Triangle* in Ethiopia.  The area where excavation was done looks like it's about 50 by 100 feet.  There is now a monument erected on spot she was found.
> 
> So much of skeleton was recovered that scientist were able to put together the probably details surrounding her death.
> 
> *CT scans revealed Lucy's 3.18-million-year-old bones had fractures*
> *She fell from a height of more than 40ft, hitting the ground at 35mph*
> *Upper arm fractures suggest she stretched out her arms to break her fall*
> *Without evidence of healing, injuries likely occurred just before she died*
> *The study offers unusual evidence for tree dwelling in the extinct species known as Australopithecus afarensis *
> 
> This recent picture shows the site where12 hominid fossils belonging... News Photo - Getty Images
> Lucy's painful last moments revealed: 3.2 million-year-old fossil of early human suggests she died after falling 40ft from a tree | Daily Mail Online
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never said the first part and you need to educate yourself on lucy,,,did you know the guy that found them had them sitting in his office for 4 yrs before he told anybody???
> 
> 40 ft huh,,, how do they know that 3.2 million yrs later,,,and from a treee no less,,,,and pictures from 40 yrs later mean nothing
> 
> 
> sorry but like I said,,,a lot of speculation based on assumptions
> 
> 
> and thats not even getting into the dating process,,,where there is no way to date 3.2 million yrs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think further discussion on this topic is fruitless.  I suggest you try conspiracy theories.  We need to focus on the actual topic of this thread.
Click to expand...


thatts best since you seem to be ignorant on the subject,,,
and the only conspiracy theory is coming from those evo's that want me to believe without proof that we all came from a rock


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the question that the study of human evolution is answering.  It began over 150 years ago and is still continuing.  We do not have a single evolutionary ancestor but rather  several which surely will increase as research continues.  That's why the following chart is labeled "Possible Pathways to Evolution of Man".  Today, our oldest discovered ancestor is Lucy, (Australopithecus afarensis) about 4 million years old, who is far more ape than than human with one very important characteristic, walking erect.  Our most recent environmental ancestor is Homo erectus who lived about a million years ago. Our Ancestral first cousin, Naenderthal Man lived about 40,000 years ago and is believed to have been driven to extinction by modern man tens of thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following is a video documentary about the search to discovery where we came from.  It's been dramatized a bit but the basic facts are correct.  It's actually pretty interesting.
> 
> I think you mentioned not being able to find scientific evidence of evolution.  Finding it is no problem.  Understanding it is something entirely different because it is technical and requires knowledge of a number of branches of science.  Scientific American has complied a rather extensive list of 6929 important scientific papers and articles on evolution that go back to 1849.  So if you're really interested, which I doubt, have at it.
> Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> first off lucy is a fraud because all the bones were found in different places and some miles away,,,and neanderthal man is just area specific and in no way mean a different species of man ,,,we even have current man with the same characteristics,,,
> now to say they got driven to extension by modern man,,,well how the heck does that happen???
> and how did modern man come to be??? were they just there one day or did something give birth to them???,,,if so what???
> 
> sorry but all of it is just crazy thinking without some sort of proof and none exist so far
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So all these scientists from different time periods and different countries are part of a great conspiracy. The over 300 fossils of neanderthal man were all a hoax.  And all the DNA evidence linking the fossils are all wrong. And the radiometric dating methods are also wrong.  And I haven't even mention all research on evolution of other species.
> 
> Lucy was discovered in 1974 in Africa, near the village Hadar in the *Awash Valley* of the *Afar Triangle* in Ethiopia.  The area where excavation was done looks like it's about 50 by 100 feet.  There is now a monument erected on spot she was found.
> 
> So much of skeleton was recovered that scientist were able to put together the probably details surrounding her death.
> 
> *CT scans revealed Lucy's 3.18-million-year-old bones had fractures*
> *She fell from a height of more than 40ft, hitting the ground at 35mph*
> *Upper arm fractures suggest she stretched out her arms to break her fall*
> *Without evidence of healing, injuries likely occurred just before she died*
> *The study offers unusual evidence for tree dwelling in the extinct species known as Australopithecus afarensis *
> 
> This recent picture shows the site where12 hominid fossils belonging... News Photo - Getty Images
> Lucy's painful last moments revealed: 3.2 million-year-old fossil of early human suggests she died after falling 40ft from a tree | Daily Mail Online
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never said the first part and you need to educate yourself on lucy,,,did you know the guy that found them had them sitting in his office for 4 yrs before he told anybody???
> 
> 40 ft huh,,, how do they know that 3.2 million yrs later,,,and from a treee no less,,,,and pictures from 40 yrs later mean nothing
> 
> 
> sorry but like I said,,,a lot of speculation based on assumptions
> 
> 
> and thats not even getting into the dating process,,,where there is no way to date 3.2 million yrs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think further discussion on this topic is fruitless.  I suggest you try conspiracy theories.  We need to focus on the actual topic of this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> thatts best since you seem to be ignorant on the subject,,,
> and the only conspiracy theory is coming from those evo's that want me to believe without proof that we all came from a rock
Click to expand...


It’s only a select few hyper-religious loons who believe we all came from a rock.


----------



## james bond

Flopper said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only means of propulsion we have now is chemical energy and that ain't gonna get us very far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NASA has bought the VASIMIR plasma propulsion engine in order to reach Mars in less than 40 days.  Can they build a space craft to do it?  Can it bring the astronauts back?  Will it have a radiation shield?
> 
> NASA’S New VASIMR PLASMA ENGINE could reach MARS in less than 40 days - Newfoxy
> 
> ETA:  Remember I told you about it years ago Fort Fun Indiana?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are there two missions to Mars planned? It seems I read about a mission being planned for the 2030's that was going to be a one way colonization trip.
Click to expand...


Only one was planned AFAIK by 2025.  It's too expensive and wasteful for two.  The purpose is to find life, i.e. microbes, or evidence of life in the past.  Where we disagree is it's not for colonization.  No way humans can live on Mars due to the radiation.  It lost its magnetic shield and atmosphere for some unknown reason.  That said, where there is life, then there is a chance for colonization.  I'm only agreeing to Mars because of, you know, the history of Martians and Earthlings in sci-fi and literature.

What might have happened is they had a recent breakthrough in the engine.  I mean if they can get there in 40 days or less.  It still is dangerous as the engine works once they are in space.  At least, the guy and company who built it has extensive experience in going out into space as an astronaut so would be an excellent candidate.


----------



## Flash

james bond said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only means of propulsion we have now is chemical energy and that ain't gonna get us very far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NASA has bought the VASIMIR plasma propulsion engine in order to reach Mars in less than 40 days.  Can they build a space craft to do it?  Can it bring the astronauts back?  Will it have a radiation shield?
> 
> NASA’S New VASIMR PLASMA ENGINE could reach MARS in less than 40 days - Newfoxy
> 
> ETA:  Remember I told you about it years ago Fort Fun Indiana?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are there two missions to Mars planned? It seems I read about a mission being planned for the 2030's that was going to be a one way colonization trip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only one was planned AFAIK by 2025.  It's too expensive and wasteful for two.  The purpose is to find life, i.e. microbes, or evidence of life in the past.  Where we disagree is it's not for colonization.  No way humans can live on Mars due to the radiation.  It lost its magnetic shield and atmosphere for some unknown reason.  That said, where there is life, then there is a chance for colonization.  I'm only agreeing to Mars because of, you know, the history of Martians and Earthlings in sci-fi and literature.
> 
> What might have happened is they had a recent breakthrough in the engine.  I mean if they can get there in 40 days or less.  It still is dangerous as the engine works once they are in space.  At least, the guy and company who built it has extensive experience in going out into space as an astronaut so would be an excellent candidate.
Click to expand...



To make it work you need a lot of power generation.  A tremendous amount.

40 days to Mars is like 400 years to the nearest star, maybe more.


----------



## Flopper

MarathonMike said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> petro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> petro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Robotics is progressing rapidly and there are some that are getting fairly close to matching human maneuverability. Once we have that, what would be the purpose of sending humans into space especially for missions such as exploring the surface of Mars?
> 
> 
> 
> Because its there.
> Why do people still suffer Everest and pay handsomely for it?
> The drive to explore and expand our horizons is deep rooted in humans and has got us to this point. No robot or drone cuts it for me. I want to see it personally if at all possible. Next evolutionary step is as a space faring species.
> All life wishes to spread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm talking about the extreme risk AND the extreme cost involved in manned space exploration. With robots you don't need food, water, poop and pee disposal, heat, and a host of other accommodations for human space travel. If it is deemed feasible to setup a colony on the moon or mars, then go to the next phase and send people. As always JMO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until we can reduce payload costs, any colony is a long way off. It would have to be self sustaining at some point.  I just believe at some distant future humankind will establish itself offworld. I see it as a long term inevitably.
> Build the equatorial elevator...
> View attachment 259281
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just can't believe a colony could be self sustaining, maybe for few months or a year but not indefinitely.  There's just too many things that can happen over a long period of time.  There would have to be some sort on going support, at least until such time that the colony was large and well developed.  Even then, shit can happen.
> 
> We'll make off world eventually, if we don't blow ourselves up or destroy the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's all about the water. If they find substantial fresh water on the Moon or Mars then it's entirely feasible for a self-sustaining colony.
Click to expand...

Don't know about the moon but there is certainly glacial ice in pockets that could be mined on Mars, certainly enough to support a colony.  However, if that colony's purpose is to build space vehicles and become a space port then the capturing of water will become a key factor.

Enceladus, one of Saturn's moons has water. The vehicle Cassini discovered that geyser-like jets spew water vapor and ice particles from an underground ocean beneath the icy crust of Enceladus.


----------



## Mindful

This could help us on our way?


Space Elevator – Science Fiction or the Future of Mankind?


----------



## 52ndStreet

Mars is a dead planet, the Moon is a a dead sky less rock, lets stop wasting money on these space mission. They are dangerous for the Astronauts , and its just to much money that could be spent right here on Earth helping people who don't have clean water to drink or toilets or showers.!!$$??!!!


----------



## Votto

52ndStreet said:


> Mars is a dead planet, the Moon is a a dead sky less rock, lets stop wasting money on these space mission. They are dangerous for the Astronauts , and its just to much money that could be spent right here on Earth helping people who don't have clean water to drink or toilets or showers.!!$$??!!!



Right, but with that logic why go to a liberal city like Chicago?

52 shot in one weekend yet the press virtually ignores it.


----------



## sealybobo

52ndStreet said:


> Mars is a dead planet, the Moon is a a dead sky less rock, lets stop wasting money on these space mission. They are dangerous for the Astronauts , and its just to much money that could be spent right here on Earth helping people who don't have clean water to drink or toilets or showers.!!$$??!!!



The planet will not live forever.  So are you ok with humans going extinct with the planet?  I'm not.

A meteor will one day wipe out all or most life on the planet.  Wouldn't it be nice if we had thousands of humans living on Mars and the Moon who could repopulate the planet.

Do you understand it's not if but WHEN the day comes?

Also, if we are running out of water wouldn't it be nice if we had the capability to go get water out in space if we needed to?

*Comets* are basically dusty snowballs which orbit the Sun. They are *made of* ices, such as water, carbon dioxide, ammonia and methane, mixed with dust. These materials came from the time when the Solar System was *formed*. *Comets* have an icy center (nucleus) surrounded by a large cloud of gas and dust (called the coma).

I think it's sad that one day we could all die just like the Marsians did because they didn't take global warming seriously.


----------



## sealybobo

Votto said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mars is a dead planet, the Moon is a a dead sky less rock, lets stop wasting money on these space mission. They are dangerous for the Astronauts , and its just to much money that could be spent right here on Earth helping people who don't have clean water to drink or toilets or showers.!!$$??!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, but with that logic why go to a liberal city like Chicago?
> 
> 52 shot in one weekend yet the press virtually ignores it.
Click to expand...


That's because the so called liberal media doesn't want to embarrass the president for failing 

"We’re gonna work on our . . .  ghettos," Trump said, searching recklessly for the right turns of phrase. "You take a look at what's going on, where you have pockets of — areas of land, where you have the inner cities and you have so many things, so many problems. So many horrible, horrible problems — the violence, the death, the lack of education, no jobs."


"We're gonna work with the African-American community and we're gonna solve the problem of the inner-city," he added. "We're gonna bring back jobs to the inner cities; we're gonna bring proper education, including school choice; and we're gonna bring safety back."

"So we're gonna work very strongly with the African-American community," he reiterated. "And remember this: the Democrats have been talking about this for years."

Maybe Trump should put his faith in Hillary Clinton, in that case. In 2011, Trump praised his Democratic opponent as a champion of the group he lovingly refers to as "the blacks."

"Here's two people, Hillary and Bill Clinton, who really devoted a lot to African Americans," Trump told the New Hampshire Union Leader, in remarks unearthed by CNN's KFILE. "They did probably as much as anybody."


----------

