Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: yes

You have not shown me an error. You can't prove your origin theory and your frustration proves an admittance of that fact. If you bothered to read them, you would understand that your knowledge of scientific nomenclature is wrong.If you want me to go point by point to show you the error of these theories then bring them up to me. If not then they are far too long to get into here. Challenge me with a point if you have one. If not then your argument has the same perceived substance as mine. I perceive that you are wasting time. You have no convincing argument against these theories, and that is why your lack of argument has been one focused on instilling doubt rather than presenting a solid case for yourself. It is also why you still make no argument.It is through faith that I claim this position.So you believe it just because you want to. No reasoning, no knowledge, just the need to believe something happens to be wrong.I believe in God and what He has revealed to us.You believe in a god and what some authors claim he revealed.I believe in His supernatural being.So you believe in magic.I believe this in faith and I don't hide that fact.Of course you do. When pressed you will say that you believe as you do because there is evidence of it. But that is a lie. When you believe because of faith, there is no evidence, just blind belief.If you refuse to even consider that existence then that is your choice.I don't dispute that you have faith.This doesn't change the fact that thousands of people claim to have witnessed the accounts in the Bible.Those are biblical accounts. Not extrabiblical ones. To use an analogy, I can claim that hundreds of people saw Harry Potter use his magic, it's all in the book. Indeed his classmates, his friends, relatives, etc. have all witnessed his incredible feats. How can you deny his magic as fact? There are hundreds of witnesses.You say it can't verify itself, but where else should it be recorded.Outside of the bible. If we saw an encyclopedia which mentioned Harry Potter in a nonfiction account, that may warrant research. If we saw newspapers reporting on magic used by the young Wizard, that would raise some eyebrows.What counts as strong evidence however is not testimony. Physical evidence, mechanisms that could explain testimony, etc.The Bible is the compilation of 66 books written from the first one (Genesis) over four thousand years in the past. What other religious text has lasted as long and followed so fervently?Seriously? Bhagavad Gītā (भगवद् गीता) is between 2000 to 5000 years old depending on scholarly method of ascertaining age. Analects (論語) were written around 2500 years ago. Veda (वेद) were assembled around 3000 years ago. Upanishad (उपनिषद्) is almost 3000 years old. The Old Testament (תּוֹרָה, נְבִיאִים, כְּתוּבִים) is as much as 3000 years old.You ignore it because you refuse to believe, and trust me that doesn't make you right.I don't believe it because I require evidence and reason. It isn't enough for someone to insist that I believe "just because" (which is what faith is). Look at the position you are in. Don't you feel awful that you just have to accept something as true because an authority told you so? How strange that must be, to be forced to admit that you must take your beliefs on faith, because you have nothing better to convince you. How difficult it must be when pressed, because your position is indefensible. You have NO defense, you just believe.Then to tell me I refuse to accept your beliefs, like that is some flaw on my part. How strange is that? Did you know that I am the President of Nigeria? Why don't you believe me? It just takes a little faith.You can't disprove the accounts in the Bible,You can't disprove that I am the president of Nigeria. You can't disprove that there are reptilian alien hybrids in Washington, who camouflage themselves and conspire to enslave us. How many things that can't be disproven do you not believe?you have thousands of witnesses who saw the accounts.In Martian Chronicles there were millions of witnesses who saw the ruins of Martian Civilisation. How can you deny the testimony of these witnesses in Martian Chronicles?The miracles were special instances so of course they don't follow natural science.If they don't follow the laws of the universe then that should tell you they are impossible. Impossible things do not happen, by definition. In other words, every time the bible proclaims a miracle, you know it just lied to you. Because miracles fundamentally cannot happen.To assume they would be restrained by those laws is ignorance. It's called using reason, and not being gullible. Of course, if you can prove that the laws of the universe can be abrogated at will, then you have a Nobel prize awaiting you.And there is the evidence. Here are a few about Jesus. I saw nothing supernatural there. Jesus appeared to some people after his death? This has happened to hysterical or otherwise deluded people before. It's not magic, but a combination of suggestibility, delusion, and wishful thinking.An eclipse happened? Or it didn't. If it did happen, Jesus was not crucified in Passover, and eclipses are natural things. If it didn't happen, the historians were mistaken because a solar eclipse couldn't occur during Passover.You're making huge claims about the world and universe, so you are required to furnish proof of biblical claims, like physical proof of a flood, that life was created from nothing, that men can be raised from the dead, etc. I'm not asking for denialism, or falsified evidence which permeates creationism.I didn't mean testify in the literal sense. How do we learn about the universe, through observing it. How do we understand fossils, by studying the fossils. The only assumptions you make about fossils is by what you observe about them. Right. So what's the problem?But if that original dense matter/energy undertook rapid expulsion, and we see that the universe is still expanding in all directions. Gravity alone would not draw that matter to other matter. We are not at critical mass even today. So how do you suppose that matter would be able to attract to one another? If space itself was under going rapid expulsion?Because in our universe there is no objective reference frame. While space expands, everything isn't expanding from some point, it is all relative to points within itself. This causes the effect that there is perceptibly no expansion of space. It is like the speed of Earth. The Earth travels at around 30km/s, and I've seen figures for the Sun traveling around the Milky way at around 200+km/s. Why aren't you traveling at this speed when you stand still? It has to do with reference frames.Gravity doesn't hold the universe in place today. That is why dark matter/energy was hypothesized. If Gravity was powerful enough to suspend the expanding space then we would never had expanded in the first place. We would still be constrained to that primordial matter/energy composite. You see then the problem with your theory? I see that you have some misunderstandings. Gravity isn't supposed to suspend expanding space, as that doesn't even make sense, since it only acts on matter, not space. Dark matter was hypothesized to account for some specific errors in measurement when observing the mass and gravity interactions of distant celestial bodies. For an inexplicable reason, certain bodies behave more massively than they are. It was hypothesized that matter must exist which doesn't absorb or emit electromagnetic radiation. This is dark matter.All of the ways of determining distance require mass and the speed of light. That mass is directly related by the luminosity of the star in question. Lensing has not been fully understood yet. That lensing would directly affect the luminosity of the celestial body. Because at such immense distances the bending of light between it and that dark matter could be very significant. If it takes a twin Quasar (the most energetic phenomenon known today) to discover this, then what other instances has this effected our astrometry. Can you say for certain? On these matters I trust the experts, because they make a living examining these methods and know them better than I do. I examined those methods and they looked systematic and reliable, because each method has a specific purpose and range of expected use.In other words, if you have these big questions, ask an expert, because he is paid for a living to ask those very questions and more than likely already has at some point before improving methodology.The operational physics absolutely, although that changes especially near black holes. There is far too many unknowns in the universe to believe it is completely symmetrical. That is only if black holes can be maintained in physics. Loop-Quantum Gravity seems to suggest that there aren't singularities as was thought under General Relativity.We observe a minute fraction of time within that stars evolution to make such claims as millions if not billions of years. Perhaps the fact that it is observable within the few decades we have had the technology shows just how rapid a stars life cycle can be. There is an uncountable number of stars in the universe, even of galaxies. We can make these observations because we have a huge display of all kinds of stars before us.A beneficial mutation is not evolution.Yes it is. When it passes onto the population, that is evolution.How do you think we got corn? Beneficial mutations to a simple grass.It is damage in the DNA that causes bacteria to lose a venerability to certain threats.It is a mutation that may confer an altered metabolism, which is a step towards totally new metabolic processes. We saw this with the long-term E. coli experiments.This does not create new genetic material that is capable of going from ape to man. Or even to change the basic genetics of the test subject. This is just a point of dogma which you memorised to keep you ignorant. Novel mutations change metabolism, if these are beneficial they are preserved and passed on. Causing evolution. Given thousands, or millions of years, or even billions, you have bacteria that become protozoa, plants, and animals. You have bacteria that evolve the ability to use citrate. You have grasses and weeds that become Corn and Rye. Millions of iterations of small steps causes a bacteria to turn into an amoeba. Millions more cause it to turn into a multicellular animal.I believe in a supernatural transcendent God.You believe in magic.You believe nothing created something. And then you restrain yourselves to natural laws and fail right out the gate because of the origin theory.I believe in using reason, which gives us many insights to answer the big questions, which you continue to deny because of your faith in magic.