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

I have no qualms with finding the physics of the universe. I actually love it! I'm all for reverse-engineering the parts of the car to find how and why they work. But the answer to the origins of the universe might not be in there, just like the origins of the car aren't actually in the car itself.If the origins of the universe forever remain obscure, then that means we will never know the answer. This means that religions cannot claim authority on the matter because they are no more privy to the details of the universe than our scientists.But then Yellowstone erupts, changing the environment and it throws off the equilibrium. Once a creature stops adapting and changing, it dies. Michael Crichton (yes, a fiction author, but lots of good research) wrote a book on it. It's quite good. It's called The Lost World. You should read it, if only for the amazing plot-line.I must assume that a species capable of seeding planets and solar systems with life is more than capable of regulating its own evolution, and in fact halting it.We have technology which makes us uniquely able to combat environmental changes.The OT is an observation of events, most likely passed down word-of-mouth until somebody got around to writing them down (and no, it probably wasn't Moses, despite popular belief). That those events happen to show the existence of God doesn't disprove them anymore than the credibility of a history book would be in danger if it mentioned the Holocaust when the world didn't believe it ever happened. That is, of course, an analogy as I'm sure the Holocaust is still believed.It does not change the claims made within it that its texts are divinely inspired, its claims about god, etc. You cannot rely on a single document to prove itself. Contrary to your example, we have multiple history texts, and we have pieces of concentration camps and the German war machine in museums.Or you could have a steady (but quite powerful) wind that allows people to walk on a shallow section of a sea. It's conceivable and has been studied. I believe the number was 67 mph, which is much less powerful than, say, a hurricane.We're talking about a sea, not a marsh or pond. The waters would not part without an extreme amount of force to push such a bulk of water (thousands of tons of it) aside.Honestly, just out of curiosity, how do we know the mountains are millions of years old? Surely they can't use carbon, as the rocks weren't living. Or did they use the same process that dated fresh rocks from Mt. St. Hellens to be a quite old? Or did they assume that the strata layers have been deposited the same rate forever?We date igneous rocks using radiometric dating.As for Mt. St. Helens:http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013_1.html That website goes into specifics of your claim.There are a whole variety of ways to date rock and mountains. They each have their strengths and weaknesses, for example measuring a sedimentary layer based on its deposit rate is accurate provided the rate is correct, then there are index fossils which can provide clues about age. Radiometric dating is very reliable when done correctly and there are many different isotopes to test for. That is why it is common to use several different dating methods.Wouldn't it be possible that a massive flood set down the layers before the mountains came up?No. It does not account for the complexity of our geographical features. When a deluge deposits layers, they are sorted by density, and the layers we have are not fixed this way (for example the fossil distribution would require all fossils on one layer, but they are scattered across geographic time based on age).But there's no harm in saying you watch channel 59, is there? So why is there harm in calling channel 59 by it's name: SyFy?It was a meaningless comment, I think you take it too seriously.And, semi-honestly, do the British spell 'civilization' with an 's' instead of a 'z'?Yes.It is also not physically possible to make a bag weighing at least 55 pounds weight 45 pounds, but it happened. It's also not possible to have paint bubble from the ground, and that happened as well. And there's really no point in trying to discredit those stories, as me and my family have witnessed them first-hand.Or my brother-in-law's friend suddenly being cured totally of cancer, with the medical x-rays to confirm it. Here's him with the tumors, and here's him without any. No treatment in between.Weight scales can malfunction, human error can occur. A tank of paint disposed of by burial could rupture, or someone lazy could have dumped it there. Cancer does go into spontaneous remission.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_remission#Cause