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

[james bond]

Oh look, a mod, trolling.

Oh look, a troll trolling. Hypocrites .

 

[westwall]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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?

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.

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]

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

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???

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

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

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]

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?

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]

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?

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.

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.

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

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]

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.

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?

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

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

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]

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???

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

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

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

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

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]

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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]

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?

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

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

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

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.

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]

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

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

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

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.

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

It’s only a select few hyper-religious loons who believe we all came from a rock.

 

[james bond]

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?

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.

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]

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?

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.!!$$??!!!