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

Theories do become laws. All the scientific laws we know were once theorized at one point. This applies to gravity and thermodynamics as well and many others. You are equivocating the meaning of theory into the casual one, which is hypothesis, in order to justify your blatant misunderstanding of scientific methodology.Your assumptions for the origin of the universe is built upon previous untestable and unobservable assumptions. There gets a point where all you have is assumptions upon assumptions i.e. Big Bang. Mathematical assumptions are proven. Secular origin theories are not proven. 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.Testing is part of the scientific method this is true. Religion has been tested and continue to do so. You may not believe the Bible, but the books written in it have been proven to have been written by those who claimed to witness the events. Religion is not tested. It is a matter of faith. It begins with you believing just for the sake of it, and ends with you believing just for the sake of it.The bible cannot be used to prove itself, either. And a minor correction: the new testament accounts were written decades after the fact, if it even happened.The debate would be to just how far back is that time.Before the first stars, when there were just dense, high energies.That is following the assumption that the triangulation of astronomical distances are correct. These distances can't be verified.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?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_distance The cosmic distance ladder (also known as the Extragalactic Distance Scale) is the succession of methods by which astronomers determine the distances to celestial objects. A real direct distance measurement to an astronomical object is only possible for those objects that are "close enough" (within about a thousand parsecs) to Earth. The techniques for determining distances to more distant objects are all based on various measured correlations between methods that work at close distances with methods that work at larger distances. Several methods rely on a standard candle, which is an astronomical object that has a known luminosity.The ladder analogy arises because no one technique can measure distances at all ranges encountered in astronomy. Instead, one method can be used to measure nearby distances, a second can be used to measure nearby to intermediate distances, and so on. Each rung of the ladder provides information that can be used to determine the distances at the next higher rung.We take the observations of our Sun and apply that to other stars in the universe. Scientists build theories on the formation of our solar system then apply that to the universe.You never heard of symmetry? Also, we can observe the formation of stars, their deaths, etc. by observing deep space with out telescopes.They do that when they can't prove how our solar system formed!!You never heard of nebular hypothesis and accretion?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis In cosmogony, the nebular hypothesis is the most widely accepted model explaining the formation and evolution of the Solar System. There is evidence that it was first proposed in 1734 by Emanuel Swedenborg.[1][2] Originally applied only to our own Solar System, this method of planetary system formation is now thought to be at work throughout the universe.[3] The widely accepted modern variant of the nebular hypothesis is Solar Nebular Disk Model (SNDM) or simply Solar Nebular Model.[4]A theory plus a theory doesn't equal a law. Manipulating physical laws to build your theories doesn't prove it. If anything it shows just how far off you really are. A scientific primer:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_fact#Fact_in_science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law A couple quick videos on the subject:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxaM0P8Fyu4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14 This is to test how the particles interact with each other, this does not show how matter was created. Particle accelerators break down matter and they form new matter. They they test theories on the composition of primordial matter, and attempt to verify hypotheses about the early universe and the formation of matter at that time.Those scientists claim to know what caused it. But they do recognize (some of them) that the absurdity of a spontaneous expansion of space from a primordial dense energy/matter combination. This is a untestable and unobservable phenomenon. That does not qualify it as actual science. 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.One other thing, people who live in tissue paper houses shouldn't throw stones. Your lack of explanation for the universe is magic words.That's where you are wrong. I take the inspired word of God on absolute authority.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 bible.You claim that I can't know the truth.I know that you cannot know the truth.Reading mythology is not a form of science.I claim that I do because of the many prophets of God. I believe the inspired words of these men are divinely established to record what God has revealed to us. That and the many eyewitnesses in the Bible, as well as extrabiblical testimony. I don't care what you claim. I could claim that Harry Potter is an accurate assessment of reality, and therefore witches must exist who battle evil. It wouldn't matter. What matters is whether I can support my claims. You cannot.Islamic scholars make the same claims as you, so do certain Hindu scholars.If God created all matter, energy, and time then in fact He did create those physical laws.I don't care about your assumptions. I asked for a mechanism. If you are going to assert that god used magic words to create the universe, provide a detailed account of how the creation of the universe happened, precisely how those words worked, what words they were, the physics of it all. If you are going to pretend that creationism is science, then you'd better provide the science of magic. Biblical stories are not applicable. I'm talking about detailed models, mechanisms, data.However, evolution has not and will never be observable or testable as is the fundamentals of genetics would have to be completely violated for it to occur. Didn't I just send you this report a week or so ago?http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.long How can you make such blatantly false statements? Do you not blush at your audacity?A statistical analysis based on the unit of one is not valid. That is not the position. The position is that we know from Earth how life could form. We know from cosmology the distribution and quantities of the elements. It is not a statistical analysis of one planet, but of space itself. Other solar systems, stars, etc.The calculations for life in the universe is just that, they are calculations based on our unique and individual planet. They have no substantial proof. When 90% of our universe is unknown then such assumptions are absurd.So now you are alleging that life could take up forms besides those of Earth. That's good for my position, because if we just use the chemical composition of Earth life as a factor in what conditions to expect for alien life, that narrows the search since we need specific solar ranges, atmospheres, chemicals, etc. If you're saying that Earth represents JUST ONE possible way that life could form, that means you acknowledge other ways that life could form, which means that the solar range may be broader, the dependence on liquid water not so critical, the atmosphere composition less specific, etc. Thanks for supporting my case.Water, carbon based life forms, its atmosphere, temperature, and the human race. http://periodictable.com/Properties/A/UniverseAbundance.html H: 75%O: 1%C: 0.5%N: 0.1%Those elements are common in the universe.http://www.ozh2o.com/h2universe.html Fortunately, the composition of a planet's atmosphere and surface can be partially determined by analyzing the spectrum of light emitted or absorbed by the elements that compose it. A spectrum is a display of the intensity of light emitted at each wavelength. Each type of molecules has a unique spectrum of light. Thus, if the spectrum of water is found to be present in the full spectrum of light that we observe from a given planet, we can infer the existence of water on that planet. Water molecules have been detected in this manner in the atmospheres and the surfaces of some of the planets and elsewhere in the universe.  Below is a partial list of evidence of the existence of water in the universe, detected spectroscopically and by other means:  Ice on the Moon: Over the last couple of years, spacecraft orbiting the Moon have used radar to study its surface. The reflection of the radar signals from craters near the poles indicates that there may be a large amount of subsurface ice there.  Comets: Comets are chunks of dust and frozen gases including water that are in highly oblong (elliptical or hyperbolic) orbits around the Sun. They are sometimes referred to as "dirty snowballs" although they are many kilometers in size. As they near the Sun, the sunlight melts some of the comet's material which results in a long tail. Some astronomers have raised the possibility that comets have fed the oceans with water through numerous collisions with the Earth over the aeons.  Mars: Even the earliest spacecraft photographs of the famous Red Planet show long jagged structures that appear to be old rivers and canyons. One canyon is as long as the United States! Photographs taken recently by the Pathfinder lander show stacked boulders that were probably deposited by raging floods. However, the atmospheric pressure on Mars is now 100 times less than ours and, therefore, water cannot exist as a liquid there anymore. It is possible that much of the water exists as subsurface ice. There are polar ice caps on Mars that get larger during the Martian winter and smaller in the summer. The ice caps are largely composed of frozen carbon dioxide, but small amounts of water-ice have also been detected.  Europa: The Galileo spacecraft orbiting Jupiter has photographed its four largest moons. The surface of one of the moons, Europa, appears cracked with many fissures, as if it is made of ice that freezes and then thaws repeatedly. There may actually be a liquid ocean under the ice! Ganymede, another of the four moons, has a similar looking surface but to a lesser degree.  Interstellar Clouds: The spectrum of water has been detected in interstellar gas/dust clouds. Water masers have even been detected. Maser stands for Microwave Amplification by the Stimulated Emission of Radiation. Water molecules in masers in interstellar clouds are stimulated by the energies of nearby stars. Very powerful masers have also been detected near the centers of other galaxies.Temperature, Atmospheres, etc.http://www.universetoday.com/53941/new-technique-to-find-earth-like-exoplanets/ http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/exoplanet20101201.html The team determined the planet, GJ 1214b, is either blanketed with a thin layer of water steam or surrounded by a thick layer of high clouds. If the former, the planet itself would have an icy composition. If the latter, the planet would be rocky or similar to the composition of Neptune, though much smaller."This is the first super-Earth known to have an atmosphere," said Jacob Bean, a NASA Sagan Fellow and astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass. "But even with these new measurements, we can't say yet what that atmosphere is made of. This world is being very shy and veiling its true nature from us." As for the human race, we know how it evolved and we have a better idea of the origin of life, and both are not special to Earth. They just require self-replicating molecules and time.Mars and Venus are within the habitable zone in our system, yet there is no life there. Proximity doesn't determine life, there are many more factors that need to be addressed. Also what type of star is in their system? It's a red dwarf with a M3V spectral class. This means usually a very old star, except the fact that it lies fairly close to us. Our Sun of course if of the G class. There are many problems with your assumption that any of its planets could harbor life. The point was that a mere 20.3 LY away a candidate planet was spotted. We keep finding new candidate planets, and they are not so far away. Imagine how populated the universe must be, of planets outside out range of view. Then imagine that just a few of them need liquid water, an atmosphere, and common chemicals to begin abiogenesis.Being that close to its star would cause massive tidal shifts in the planet. This would be a very volcanic terrain. Not to mention the formation of the star and planets would have robbed most of the 'organic' producing material (according to secular theories). Early Earth was very volcanic and extremely uninhabitable. Planets have stages.That's a principle not a law. You can't cite an assumptuous theory with another. Did you bother to read it? It's mathematical.You are right falsifiable is very important but that falls under testable. You are wrong about dark matter (a made up concept to explain errors in theories). We can't test dark matter at all. What we do is observe the interactions we believe it has with other objects. We can only assume its mass and maybe velocity. Dark matter is evidenced by gravitational and cosmic background radiation anomalies. It is an example of using theory to find indirect evidence of something. If you have a problem with it, make a case. Don't just spout innuendos that you don't understand.That sounds like the Big Bang. Only an ignorant person would say such a thing. Try reading about it.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theory#Observational_evidence I realise that being as deeply religious as you are requires denial of basic science, but at least do your homework.You mean assumption based guesses to deny the truth. Are you talking about Christianity again?No it isn't the universe testifies about the universe right? The universe does not testify.Miracles are impossible in natural science. But they are not impossible to God. Water can and has been manipulated by the Creator. Jesus rose from the dead because He is Emmanuel (God with us). And the ark preserved the different species and kinds for re-population. I'll just replace your language with its real meaning so you can spot the errors:Miracles are impossible in the universe, by definition. But god is defined to be magical. Water can and has been manipulated by magic. Jesus rose from the dead because of magic. And the ark preserved the different species and kinds for re-population with magic. I'll also address the last bit: a flooded Earth would be unable to host life after the waters are magiked away. All life, including bacteria, plants, sealife and riverlife would perish. This is because all life has its own range of temperatures, moisture, saline concentration, etc. that it can live in. A worldwide flood would merge those conditions into one which is inhospitable to all life. Ark or not, all life would perish. Also, life cannot inbreed to repopulate. Inbreeding causes severe problems to animal fitness.Is that not what the network is called now? Do you refer to Germany as Prussia? Or do you use the latent name? I call it Deutschland. I also use the original names for the elements; Kalium, Plumbum, Hydragyrum, Argentum, Wolfram, Natrium, Cuprum, Aurum, Stibium, Stannum, Ferrum etc. I like old things.A zombie is still dead through the fictitious virus. Jesus is risen the flesh on Him is as alive as it was before His Crucification. A worldwide flood is not impossible. We have billions of dead things buried in mud everywhere. If that water was still here then we would still be flooded. You need to look at the deep sea trenches and ice caps to see where that water receded.I misspoke, I meant undead. Jesus is your undead saviour. I guess we need a better way to kill holy men that keeps them dead. I wonder if that could be a sales pitch for Hydrogen Cyanide: "Kills men dead and keeps them that way."I already explained why a worldwide flood could not happen. It was an oral story passed on many thousands of years ago which the biblical authors exaggerated because that's the nature of storytelling for morals.There is not enough water on Earth to flood it. Frozen water does not recede, it expands because water crystalises, so icecaps with this much water would expand to cover the world even deeper in ice. There isn't enough water in the icecaps to come close to flooding the Earth. A worldwide deluge would kill everything with no survival afterwords, it would be a dead planet. We are talking about so much water that it would rise miles into the air, on every point upon Earth. These figures are huge, and you could not hide the water, because fluids conform to their surface. Water does not compress. A wooden ark could not hold every species on Earth. If you say that it held "kinds" then you imply that evolution by natural selection is a fact, while denying the constraints of genetics which do not allow small populations to inbreed for fitness.See how much you need to deny basic reality to believe your silly mythology?