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

That is not how science works. Theories never become laws. Theories are models designed to explain and predict observations and data. They incorporate laws into their framework. Laws are simple descriptions of nature, which are conditionally true.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. Everything is based upon assumptions. It is impossible to reason or conjecture or use logic without making assumptions. Mathematics uses assumptions, we call them axioms. You'd better try making an actual case for yourself rather than stating reality.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. Science tests its assumptions. That is what separates it from religion, which makes assumptions and calls it dogma, never to be questioned.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. The telescopes allow us to see back in time, to the first moments of the universe's existenceThe debate would be to just how far back is that time. That is following the assumption that the triangulation of astronomical distances are correct. These distances can't be verified. 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. They do that when they can't prove how our solar system formed!! 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. and the particle accelerators exist to test hypotheses about the formation of matter from its most basic parts.This is to test how the particles interact with each other, this does not show how matter was created. Scientists do not claim to know what caused the big bang, they only suggest possibilities, and they also admit that it is a very difficult problem to solve.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. I will repeat that, since you like to assume knowledge where you have none: nobody knows what caused the universe. Including yourself.That's where you are wrong. I take the inspired word of God on absolute authority. You claim that I can't know the truth. 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. Those are not mechanisms. They are assertions with no depth behind them. Examples of mechanisms are evolution by natural selection, thermodynamics, genetics, etc. These all contain elaborately documented, tested and insightful mechanisms.If God created all matter, energy, and time then in fact He did create those physical laws. The observations of thermodynamics, genetics, and natural selection are all within the natural sciences. 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. Look up the burden of proof. It is the established position in science that life's needs are not unique to Earth. You are making a claim that negates this established position, and therefore must substantiate your claim.A statistical analysis based on the unit of one is not valid. We know of our planet and what its individual complexities are. All of our documentation and research of life is directly related to our planet. Spectroscopy can't determine if water exists on another planet. The fact that no other life exists in our solar system should negate a lot of possibilities within the universe. 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. Furthermore the established position is highly debated among your secular scientists. Most scientists don't believe there is life out there. It is a reasonable deduction based on the qualities of our planet, and how common that is in our massive universe.The qualities of our planet are significant and isolated. What makes Earth unique?Water, carbon based life forms, its atmosphere, temperature, and the human race. Distance from the sun? Gliese 581 c and d are in that zone at their star, and the star is a mere 20.3 light years from us, out of a universe billions of light years across.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. A direct measurement of the radius cannot be taken because, viewed from Earth, the planet does not transit Astronomical transitThe term transit or astronomical transit has three meanings in astronomy: A transit is the astronomical event that occurs when one celestial body appears to move across the face of another celestial body, as seen by an observer at some particular vantage point. A transit occurs when a celestial... its sun. With a minimum mass of roughly five times Earth—or one third that of Neptune—Gliese 581 c orbits just inside of the habitable zoneHabitable zoneIn astronomy, the habitable zone is the distance from a star where an Earth-like planet can maintain liquid water on its surface and Earth-like life. The habitable zone is the intersection of two regions that must both be favorable to life; one within a planetary system, and the other within a... of its parent star. The mean blackbody surface temperature has been estimated to lie between −3 °C (for a Venus-like albedoAlbedoThe albedo of an object is a measure of how strongly it reflects light from light sources such as the Sun. It is therefore a more specific form of the term reflectivity. Albedo is defined as the ratio of total-reflected to incident electromagnetic radiation. It is a unitless measure indicative of...) and 40 °C (for an Earth-like albedo), however, the temperatures could be much higher (about 500 degrees Celsius) due to a runaway greenhouse effect akin to that of VenusVenusVenus is the second planet from the Sun, orbiting it every 224.7 Earth days. The planet is named after Venus, the Roman goddess of love and beauty. After the Moon, it is the brightest natural object in the night sky, reaching an apparent magnitude of −4.6, bright enough to cast shadows.... Some astronomers believe the system may have undergone planetary migrationPlanetary migrationPlanetary migration occurs when a planet or other stellar satellite interacts with a disk of gas or planetesimals, resulting in the alteration of the satellite's orbital parameters, especially its semi-major axis... and Gliese 581 c may have formed beyond the frost lineFrost line (astrophysics)In astronomy or planetary science, the frost line, also known as the snow line or ice line, refers to a particular distance in the solar nebula from the central protosun where it is cool enough for hydrogen compounds such as water, ammonia, and methane to condense into solid ice grains. Depending..., with a composition similar to icy bodies like GanymedeGanymede (moon)Ganymede is a satellite of Jupiter and the largest satellite in the Solar System. It is the seventh moon and third Galilean satellite outward from Jupiter. Completing an orbit in roughly seven days, Ganymede participates in a 1:2:4 orbital resonance with the moons Europa and Io, respectively.... Gliese 581 c completes a full orbit in just under 13 days.http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/ Gliese_581 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). Compositional elements? Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, etc. are common elements in the universe, which are not exclusive to Earth.I know we see them in Red Giants, does that mean you think life exists there? That is why I said that it MAY be a problem. It isn't certain, however what worries me is the asteroid belt. High-gravity objects passing could draw an asteroid into our path.That is your assumption of what could happen. But you should know the enormous amount of space that is out there. Ever heard of the Hardy–Weinberg principle? That's basic biology.That's a principle not a law. You can't cite an assumptuous theory with another. You forgot "falsifiable." You also put too much emphasis on observable, as this is optional. For example, we know much about Dark Matter without having observed it, because we can make experiments which test for indirect evidenceYou 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. Those statements are what you said if we draw the meaning of your language out into the open. It's easy to say silly things when you hide the silliness behind pompous language.Kind of like terraforming? You aren't drawing meanings, you are imposing your interpretations. You believe in an unproven, untestable, unfalsifiable assumption that uses magic.That sounds like the Big Bang. I believe in using evidence-based reasoning to solve the great questions.You mean assumption based guesses to deny the truth. In Martian Chronicles we have observed that alien life exists upon the surface of Mars, is telepathic, and is susceptible to Varicella.Ha! You have some seriously crazy ideas. The bible is not evidence of its own authoritativeness. This is obviously a violation of the basic rules of reasoning.No it isn't the universe testifies about the universe right? Actually not. None of those things have occurred. They are merely recorded in the bible, but since you use the bible as evidence for itself, that is why you think those events happened despite being fundamentally impossible.Water conforms to its surface, it cannot be magically divided without defying gravity. People cannot rise from the dead after brain death and neural degeneration. A worldwide flood cannot have happened because there is insufficient water on Earth, and all life would die afterwards.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. You must be very young to use that word, "syfy" when it was always called "science fiction." Anyway, I do not believe you have a foot to stand on after just telling me that you believe in zombies and magical floods.Is that not what the network is called now? Do you refer to Germany as Prussia? Or do you use the latent name? 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.