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

Well let's see you make a hypothesis to test your theory. This is a basic part of the scientific method. Where is the misunderstanding? I gave you these links earlier to explain your error.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_fact#Fact_in_sciencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_lawhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxaM0P8Fyu4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14 Your assumptions are not provable. We all assume before we actually know. To be able to know you must be able to prove by factual evidence. Not assumptuous evidence. Again, I'm waiting for an actual argument instead of your assertion that the big bang, abiogenesis and evolution are wrong.Why can't it? Like I said before we study the universe to verify what the universe is doing. We compare what is in the Bible but not only the books in them also extrabiblical references as well. Your logic is we can't use fossils to explain fossils. You can't because it's circular. Your argument for god becomes "God exists because the bible says god exist and we can trust the bible because it says it is god's word."You need extrabiblical evidence and material.On those other subjects, fossils do not claims about themselves, and the universe doesn't proclaim anything. You are confusing investigation of a subject with using that subject to verify itself.Even in your own theory (Big Bang) we shouldn't see any proximity of matter in the universe. Especially if space itself is constantly expanding. If the universe has been expanding since 15 billion years, then why are we seeing gravitational collisions between galaxies. If that first rapid expanse occurred how would matter ever had combined with other matter. Gravity draws matter together. If it didn't exist, then your prediction would be correct.Well these distances rely on the red shift to figure its recessional velocity. Knowing its recessional velocity we can determine its distance from us. The problem this poses is the amount of unseen matter in the universe (secular theory). There is no way to accurately detect gravitational lensing on average stars outside our own galaxy. We only recently discovered this problem with the double Quasar. Which is a very luminous and extremely high energy event. Other stellar occurrences would be extremely difficult to observe as most of what is known is simply their composition. There is just too many stars to individually monitor for repeated occurrences. And as the distance increases so would the chance for interference. Not to mention gravity stretching the light from all of the dark matter we can't detect. You see then how the variables need to be accounted for? That is why we have many different methods to measure distance, and each one has its prescribed limitations and variables accounted for. Your claim only works if we assume we have just one tool in our kit, which is simplistic and doesn't account for modern knowledge.You can't impose that when you have one example to go on. And the one example is not an observable event. This isn't operational science but purely theoretical. Symmetry supersedes those scientific laws that you are so enamoured by. It is derived from math and explains, essentially, that physics must operate the same everywhere in the universe, and at any time. It also explains the conservation laws.As for your other objections:http://www.space.com/11083-hubble-photo-dying-star-toxic-gas.htmlhttp://astroblog.cosmobc.com/2011/02/24/astronomy-picture-of-the-week-supernova- bubble-resembling-holiday-ornament/ http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap100626.htmlWe see dying stars, newly born stars, indeed all sorts of phenomena just by observing space. That is how we learn about stellar evolution, and how we test those theories.I have heard of it, but I have never seen it. Try looking at the Hubble telescope photos some day. There are many examples of stars forming, of nebulae condensing, etc.http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery-astro-nebula.html I will stop you there, it is not new matter. The same electrons, protons, and neutrons are recycled to make different particles. They can't defy the law of conservation of mass and energy. My language was not precise: They break down matter and form new kinds of matter with it.Only the made up instances of quantum occurrences. When their research doesn't coincide with the supported model then they are completely ignored. Evolutionists themselves hinder scientific progress because they limit their ideas to such exorbitant amount of time. Biologists use a theory that has been refined for over a century. The claims it makes exist because of the evidence leading to those conclusions. You should know better, but instead you deny a fundamental piece of science because you have faith in something written by men over two thousand years ago. Have some context for your bold claims.The simple fact is that we have observed animals and bacteria evolve. We have observed new mutations that benefit populations. What haven't we observed? God. Magic. Prayer working. A flat Earth (biblical claim). A fixed Earth (biblical claim). People walking on water. Animals popping into existence from nothing (creationism).You have no place to criticise biology and science when your beliefs are absurd and laughable.My explanation is the account in scripture. I believe God a supernatural being created all that is in the universe. You believe that matter/energy came into existence...? That's right through nothing!! That or you are stupid enough to believe it always existed and violate both laws of thermodynamics. Especially because ever trade off with energy always loses an amount. You believe in a text written over two thousand years ago, by man. You believe that text's claim that it is inspired by a god which it claims exists. That is the truth of the matter. You have not established that god exists, or that the text is correct. You have only your belief in it. Belief that flies in the face of modern evidence and methodology. You believe in a document that explains how to sacrifice animals to appease a god. That claims men can live in the belly of a giant fish. That says that women came from a rib (actually the baculum). That says magic words can create things from nothing.Then you have the gall to talk about my assumptions as if I am the one making absurd claims that defy nature and reality. That is known as projection. My claims are not absurd, neither are my assumptions, but you are projecting your absurdity onto me as a defense mechanism. Learn your place. You have no business calling other people stupid or absurd when you believe in talking snakes and literal hocus pocus.The facts are that I gave you two possible answers being investigated which describe how our universe may have come into being. This is a very recondite subject, well beyond your education, and one of the few subjects that I have difficulty understanding, which is saying something because I am hardly ever challenged. That you dismiss it out of hand without bothering to learn about it, says volumes of your ignorance and arrogance.It is the inspired word of God. That is a fact you have no proof to dispute. Tell me what do you think the Bible says about the universe. Quote some scripture. No. It claims to be the inspired word of an assumed god. See the difference? Harry Potter claims to be an account of a young wizard in Hogwarts. Martian Chronicles claims to be an account of our exploration and conquest of Mars. You made a puerile mistake in confusing a claim with a fact.Of course I can't dispute that claim, it is an unfalsifiable one. Remember what I told you about science (aka knowledge) and falsifiability? What, don't tell me you automatically believed it because it cannot be proven false? That's funny. I cannot prove or dispute the claim that leprechauns exist. Do you believe in them? How about fairies? Monsters under the bed?Jeremiah 10:1212 It is he who made the earth by his power,who established the world by his wisdom,and by his understanding stretched out the heavens.Yeah, so? It's talking about the firmament. In biblical cosmology the Earth is surrounded by the universe which is a dome-like structure of firmament. Oh, also the Earth is flat and fixed. The dome has windows which let in water. Read Psalm, Job, 1 Chronicles, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Matthew and Revelation. I believe even Genesis mentions the windows of heaven.You mean like science fiction? Terraforming and Martians. Martian Chronicles is a book I read, used to illustrate the point about believing silly things in books. Like gods.