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

Mechanisms aren't required when the creator is working outside of the universe.So you have no answers and are touting ignorance in their place. Just like I said you were doing.If you have no answers to offer that increase our insight about nature, then just keep your mouth shut on the topic and let people who care about truth answer the big questions. Because, you have no answers. You just have ignorance masquerading as knowledge. You are only answering a question with more questions.Just like the mechanisms for building a car aren't contained in the car itself.This is a broken analogy. When figuring out how a car works, one does not say "Jim made it by speaking it into existence" and leave that as the answer. You reverse-engineer the components and discover their physics.Also, don't say "Well, we can always ask Jim how the car was made" because you cannot do that with god. Remember that god is defined to be supernatural. That means any alleged divine revelations or communications can never be shown to have come from god, which means that any voices you hear can't be shown to be anything more than mental illness. You'll also note, to continue the metaphor, that no holy book has ever contained any knowledge about the universe that was ahead of the era the book was written in and that instead we find people reading modern insights into holy verses (which is the opposite of a prediction).The burden of proof is still on you, and you have yet to supply it. All the exosolar planets I've heard and read about are quite different from Earth. The closest thing would be Kepler-10b, which is only 1.5 Earth radii, but the temperature of the surface is a sweltering 1833 K. The next might be COROT-7b at 1.5 Earth radii as well, and it's also around 2000 K, not to mention eight times as massive. And both of those not-close planets are around 500 light years away.I already answered this.Gliese 581 c has never been directly observed, but has more than 5 times the mass of Earth, and reports of atmospheric conditions cast doubt on habitability. 851 e is the closest to earth-sized, but it's far too close to the star.A heavy earth would not be inhospitable to life. It is within the habitable zone, however.Please enlighten me.Under certain conditions equilibrium can be achieved in allele frequencies, thus ending evolution.It's easy to say God uses magic as we can't understand Him. Just like the parts of the car probably think (if they were sentient) that the car manufacturing plant is magic, as there's nothing on the car that could do what the plant could do.When you call something supernatural, that is the same thing as magic. If you cannot claim to understand god, then why would you propose it as an explanation? Why would anyone propose something that they say will never be understood as an answer to a question? You're just parroting beliefs at this point if you have no understanding.And why not? Much of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, is history. Historical text. Normally historians love text that old that tells what happened. It's called 'primary source'. As for the parting of the Red Sea, it wasn't 'magic'. The Bible clearly states that God used wind to do it. And science has actually confirmed that under the right circumstances, wind can push water significantly. Using a book to prove itself is circular. The bible claims that god exists, then claims its writings as proof (those allegedly historical writings), and THEN claims that it can be trusted because it is the word of god (inerrant). This is circular reasoning.Also, if you have enough wind to push the massive bulk of a sea in half, you have enough wind to tear apart anyone who walks in the path of that divided water.And there is enough water on Earth to completely cover the land--if the land was flattened a bit. Okay, a lot a bit. But what's to say the pre-flood Earth wasn't quite flat? Certainly something like a worldwide flood would change the landscape. Maybe the flood was what set the tectonic plates in motion, causing the modern mountains to rise up out of the water.The nature of water is that it will conform to the surface it fills. That means, if there isn't enough water to cover Earth now, there never was. It also means that if the Earth was covered in water, the water would have no place to go. A flat earth is not indicated in the geological record, as our highest mountains are millions of years old, not thousands.There is a name for what you're doing. It's called Argumentum ad Hominem.Actually not. I wasn't using youth as an attack on his argument.Syfy is actuall a channel on TV. Judging by his grammar and writing skill, I'd say that he's actually a well-educated adult, or at least a well-educated young adult. I've noticed that you've made more spelling errors than he has.Yes, and it was part of a trend in today's youth to repackage Sci-Fi as syfy for trendiness. Also, I use British spelling which is a different, but correct, system.I've covered the 'magic' part. As for zombies, people raised from the dead aren't zombies. Zombies are mindless living-dead creatures. People God has raised are ex-dead people.Zombie was a bit of a misnomer, but you're right that they would be undead. Still a silly thing to believe in, magical undead walking the earth and ascending into the sky.In the New Testament, which is an amazing Primary Source, has recorded several people coming back to life through God's power. That you refuse to believe historical text is quite disappointing.It is not biologically possible for the dead to resurrect once the brain decomposes past a certain point (if you've been dead for hours or days, you're reached it). If you try to raise a person this decomposed back to life, you will indeed have a zombie because they will not retain any identity.The bible is not a credible document, neither is the New Testament. You cannot use the bible to justify itself. Now, if we had multiple credible historic reports of dead walking the earth, that would certainly warrant further research.