Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: No

You are equivocating the meaning of theory into the casual one, which is hypothesis, in order to justify your blatant misunderstanding of scientific methodology.Well let's see you make a hypothesis to test your theory. This is a basic part of the scientific method. Where is the misunderstanding? You did not make a case for yourself. You just repeated yourself without a deeper understanding of what an assumption is, and then asserted that scientific theories are unproven.Your assumptions are not provable. We all assume before we actually know. To be able to know you must be able to prove by factual evidence. Not assumptuous evidence. Definition of ASSUMPTION1a : the taking up of a person into heaven b capitalized : August 15 observed in commemoration of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary 2: a taking to or upon oneself 3: the act of laying claim to or taking possession of something 4: arrogance, pretension 5a : an assuming that something is true b : a fact or statement (as a proposition, axiom, postulate, or notion) taken for granted 6: the taking over of another's debtshttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assumption Definition of KNOWLEDGE1obsolete : cognizance 2a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something (2) : the range of one's information or understanding c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition d : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned 3archaic : sexual intercourse 4a : the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind b archaic : a branch of learninghttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/knowledge The bible cannot be used to prove itself, either.Why can't it? Like I said before we study the universe to verify what the universe is doing. We compare what is in the Bible but not only the books in them also extrabiblical references as well. Your logic is we can't use fossils to explain fossils. Before the first stars, when there were just dense, high energies.Even in your own theory (Big Bang) we shouldn't see any proximity of matter in the universe. Especially if space itself is constantly expanding. If the universe has been expanding since 15 billion years, then why are we seeing gravitational collisions between galaxies. If that first rapid expanse occurred how would matter ever had combined with other matter. If you're not going to address the argument itself but just use innuendo to instill doubt to the minds of the lesser educated, why are you here?Well these distances rely on the red shift to figure its recessional velocity. Knowing its recessional velocity we can determine its distance from us. The problem this poses is the amount of unseen matter in the universe (secular theory). There is no way to accurately detect gravitational lensing on average stars outside our own galaxy. We only recently discovered this problem with the double Quasar. Which is a very luminous and extremely high energy event. Other stellar occurrences would be extremely difficult to observe as most of what is known is simply their composition. There is just too many stars to individually monitor for repeated occurrences. And as the distance increases so would the chance for interference. Not to mention gravity stretching the light from all of the dark matter we can't detect. You see then how the variables need to be accounted for? You never heard of symmetry? Also, we can observe the formation of stars, their deaths, etc. by observing deep space with out telescopes.You can't impose that when you have one example to go on. And the one example is not an observable event. This isn't operational science but purely theoretical. You never heard of nebular hypothesis and accretion?I have heard of it, but I have never seen it. Particle accelerators break down matter and they form new matterI will stop you there, it is not new matter. The same electrons, protons, and neutrons are recycled to make different particles. They can't defy the law of conservation of mass and energy. You hardly understand the scientific process, and now you want to debunk quantum mechanics? Talk about brazen. Also, despite how authoritative some scientists are, their opinion on the cause of the big bang is not the same as their research. You should know better.Only the made up instances of quantum occurrences. When their research doesn't coincide with the supported model then they are completely ignored. Evolutionists themselves hinder scientific progress because they limit their ideas to such exorbitant amount of time. One other thing, people who live in tissue paper houses shouldn't throw stones. Your lack of explanation for the universe is magic words.My explanation is the account in scripture. I believe God a supernatural being created all that is in the universe. You believe that matter/energy came into existence...? That's right through nothing!! That or you are stupid enough to believe it always existed and violate both laws of thermodynamics. Especially because ever trade off with energy always loses an amount. No you don't. You take the word of man as the asserted word of god. Be honest with yourself. If there is a god, it is not your god, because this universe is infinitely more complex than anything dreamt up in the bibleIt is the inspired word of God. That is a fact you have no proof to dispute. Tell me what do you think the Bible says about the universe. Quote some scripture. Jeremiah 10:1212 It is he who made the earth by his power, who established the world by his wisdom, and by his understanding stretched out the heavens.I know that you cannot know the truth.Reading mythology is not a form of science.You mean like science fiction? Terraforming and Martians. I will respond to the rest later.