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

Theories have not fully passed the scientific method. That is why they are not laws.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.What I have told you about origins is they are built upon assumptions.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.The theory (as it is not a law) is built upon assumptions to what had occurred at the beginning of the universe. The original primordial energy/matter is not there for us to test and observe.Science tests its assumptions. That is what separates it from religion, which makes assumptions and calls it dogma, never to be questioned.What do you think particle accelerators and telescopes exist for? The telescopes allow us to see back in time, to the first moments of the universe's existence, and the particle accelerators exist to test hypotheses about the formation of matter from its most basic parts.And your theorists can't even come up with its original creation. Again, the difference between science and religion is the admission of ignorance. 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. Nobody knows how the universe started. I will repeat that, since you like to assume knowledge where you have none: nobody knows what caused the universe. Including yourself. Religions on the other hand make guesses, your religion guesses that an infinitely complicated being used magic words to make reality. It doesn't know that, and neither do you. You just guess, and hope, that you do.He spoke them into existence. God created our physical laws. 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.But the burden to prove is on you.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.Its up to you to find another planet equally as complex. If you can't then you just assume one such planet exists. It is a reasonable deduction based on the qualities of our planet, and how common that is in our massive universe. What makes Earth unique? 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. Compositional elements? Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, etc. are common elements in the universe, which are not exclusive to Earth.That isn't necessarily so. When galaxies collide (according to secular theories) the gravitational effects of individual bodies will be very minimal. More of the 'action' will take place in the nucleus. Not in the spiral arms or disk. Especially in the barred spiral galaxies like the two in question here. 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.If you really believe in evolution then you know that a stasis is impossible. That sounds like a contradiction. It actually isn't impossible. Ever heard of the Hardy–Weinberg principle? That's basic biology.For a theory to be an actual theory in science it has to be testable and observable. If not then it is just an assumption. You can't test or observe the origin of the universe. 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 evidence.Do not change my words to negate them.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.I believe in God the creator of all things.You believe in an unproven, untestable, unfalsifiable assumption that uses magic.You believe in alien civilizations to which none have ever been recorded.I believe in using evidence-based reasoning to solve the great questions.At least in the Bible we have observed interactions with God on a massive scale.In Martian Chronicles we have observed that alien life exists upon the surface of Mars, is telepathic, and is susceptible to Varicella.The bible is not evidence of its own authoritativeness. This is obviously a violation of the basic rules of reasoning.You have the resurrection, parting of the Red Sea, and the worldwide Flood. All of these events have been witnessed and observed by the people who lived through it. 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.On a personal note: Stop watching Syfy and start researching real astronomy.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.