The Instigator
GoOrDin
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
PowerPikachu21
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Science is False

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/30/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,492 times Debate No: 81823
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (97)
Votes (0)

 

GoOrDin

Pro

I would like to present the Argument that "Modern Science" referred to by children, scholars, students, and all people across the globe are based on fallacy, ignorance/arrogance and lack of fundamental studying.

I will make references to chemistry, archeology, math, theory, literature, and any other scientific field used as structure for common beliefs.

I am debating that the majority of scientific references made by people in debates are not valid evidence nor are they structural support for beliefs.

"chia's"
PowerPikachu21

Con

I'll gladly accept this debate. Science is NOT false, and it's on Pro to disprove science.

First, I should give definitions on certain words so it can be clear what we will refer to, and Pro may not change the definitions.

Science: 1. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. 2. A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws. (Dictionary.com)

Theory: a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena. (Dictionary.com) (Theory of Evolution, Theory of Gravity, etc.)

Pro must disprove the following things science has proven:

Abiogenesis; the chemical change in an inorganic object into an organic being.

The Law of Conservation of Matter; matter cannot be created nor destroyed

Newton's Laws of Motion: 1; (Law of Inertia) An object at rest will stay at rest, and an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by an unbalanced force (such as friction and gravity). 2; (Law of Acceleration) An object with a greater mass will accelerate slower than an object with a lower mass, when pushed with the same force. 3; (Law of Action/Reaction) Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. (You push a wall, the wall pushes back with equal force)

Those are a few I could think of from the top of my head. But, Pro must disprove these. I suggest Pro makes a video where he breaks physics (He won't though. But if he does, I'd be very surprised!). I expect a big challenge from Pro, though.
Debate Round No. 1
GoOrDin

Pro

Fallacy in Modern Application of Scientific References;

PowerPickachu21 wanted me to disprove Abiogenesis. convenient.
Abiogenesis indicates that there is no biotic matter. aka. it is not a living thing. IN other words, he wants me to what? ?*?
Abiotic-genesis does not scientifically lead to life. There is not evidence suggesting it, nor facts proving it.
IN fact, abiotic genesis is a perfect example of the fallacy children and bigots reoccurring present as arguments on the internet.

EX.
Powerpickachu21 factually did not study it: Not on an atomic level, not on a molecular level, not even in a theoretical level, or in a professional and unbiasedly-regulated atmosphere. < thus. PowerPickachu cannot stipulated that the science even exists : that it had ever been done; that any finds regarding such a scientific experiment suggested abiogenesis lead to life; that the scientists were qualified; or that the scientists conclusions were logical or accurate.

IN fact Abiogenesis, regardless of it's accuracy was a perfect example to prove the point the debate was structured at making.
Your reference to science was founded on ignorance in an arrogant manner. The studying and research had not been done on a personal level, and the sources he would have/could have chose are not Factually trustworthy.

This is an argument I have been presenting for months and years as being a huge issue in the scientific field, and in the way people argue. "The bible was written by people. This scientific theory is made by homosapiens. So my book written by homosapiens is correct."

There is a documentary on Netflix at the moment. False Sciences being Advertised for profitable purposes. AKA. Rich people pay tons of money for you to be told what will help produce an arrogant+ignorant following of belligerent fools.

The Law of Conservation is not a science. It is a law of physics. It is founded on theoretical/philosophical premises. Newton believed in God** as a side note. However. The law of conservation existed long before atomic studies became advanced, and molecules became categorized into a chart of elements. Proving or disproving this concept is redundant.

However, now that you are thinking of the chart of elements, and atomic values. ..
First a Computer cannot make discoveries. It can only do what it is programmed to do. Nothing else. It detects things within the parameters and tot he specifications the computer is programmed to detect; It cannot make discoveries.

Regardless, we are discussing as a debate. The scientific validity of the references made by people on the internet, at school and in the work lace:* The Fallacy of referencing scientists whom you do not know, and the sciences that you are unsure of the situations in which they "supposedly" conducted them.

The words of man, when reinforced with mountains of cash, gas and asss,
are not worth a damn-nation of fools defending them needlessly as though they are facts,
when no evidence suggest that they are.

I await my opponents contributions quite eagerly.
PowerPikachu21

Con

I believe my opponent made a few fallacies:

1. "I have not done personal research"

A fallacy at it's finest. Just because I haven't touched, seen, smelt, or heard Abiogenesis directly, that doesn't mean it's not true. Pro might be moving the goalposts a bit, possibly demanding a video of myself doing Abiogenesis. If you don't believe the process of Abiogenesis, or any other biological, archeological, physical, etc., just go to google. Actually, I'll do that for you. (I admit I can't think of other good science things, but there's a lot) Yes, abiogenesis isn't really a fact, as much as a hypothesis. BUT it still works as an explanation of how life could form from inorganic matter. Pro must *scientifically* prove that abiogenesis isn't *scientifically* possible.

Abiogenesis: https://en.wikipedia.org... , http://studytoanswer.net... , http://www.asa3.org...

I'm expecting Pro to just disregard all 3 links, but that's ignoring evidence altogether. (If you want a video of me, too bad. If you did want a video, you may think it's editing or something, so I'm not going to bother.)

2. Irrelevant claims

Pro states "First a Computer cannot make discoveries. It can only do what it is programmed to do. Nothing else. It detects things within the parameters and tot he specifications the computer is programmed to detect; It cannot make discoveries." Oh, computers can't discover. Uhhh... what does that have to do with anything? Even atomic numbers and the "chart of elements", otherwise known as the Periodic Table. How does this even help what case?

"Newton believed in God** as a side note" So? I, too, believe in a God, but that does NOT prove anything. A debate is on evidence and logic, not one's beliefs. Just because Issac Newton believes in God does not mean-- wait, what does it mean again?

3. Ad homonym (just pointing these out)

I see quite a few insults in Pro's argument. Not really directed to me as much as everyone else. Let's see...

"... a perfect example of the fallacy children and bigots reoccurring present as arguments on the internet." That's like, at least 60% of the people on this website!


"... that any finds regarding such a scientific experiment suggested abiogenesis lead to life; that the scientists were qualified; or that the scientists conclusions... " This isn't that major, but he's kind of questioning the scientists' capabilities. Moving on...

"This scientific theory is made by homosapiens. So my book written by homosapiens is correct." Attacking the world once again! Calling people things does nothing, except possibly damage your reputation. (Note: he said "Bible was written by people", so I don't see how 'homosapien' can't be an insult)

"Rich people pay tons of money for you to be told what will help produce an arrogant+ignorant following of belligerent fools." This one feels a bit directed to me. Probably not Pro's intention for calling me a "fool" for believing in science, but sure seems like that has been done.

"The words of man, when reinforced with mountains of cash, gas and asss,
are not worth a damn-nation of fools defending them needlessly as though they are facts,
when no evidence suggest that they are." Ad homonym. Doesn't prove anything.

Again, I wasn't the victim of these, but the world was a victim. Also, ad homonym proves nothing.

Some things Pro must prove/disprove:

- Pro must prove why abiogenesis is impossible. Yes, it's conjecture. BUT that doesn't automatically mean it's downright false, it's just uncertain.

- Pro must explain what kind of debates we shall refer to, which use "the fallacy of science", as I'll call it.

- I would like Pro to recommend a variety of scientific topics to include in Rounds 3 and 4. Since abiogenesis is merely a (reasonable) hypothesis, we'd be at a stalemate if we just went on about that one subject. If Pro wants to, we can still talk about abiogenesis, but we should have variety.

- Pro must explain why science doesn't work/what fallacies it runs on.

And with that, let's hear Pro's reasoning on why science if invalid.
Debate Round No. 2
GoOrDin

Pro

Thank you Powerpickachu21. I am. I am attacking 60% of the people on the website.

however, the fact of the matter is that the format and direction of the debate do not require me to disprove or prove any scientific claim. You came in here very rash, and you made assertions which were irrelevant tot he discussion.

The fact of the matter is, that You have not studied Abiogenesis. YOu repeated what you were told, or what you "found" to be available to you. The credibility of the sources were in fact 100% unreliable. The Schools, as I have said are privatized to give the Government deniability - and everything they teach you was heavily funded. cash gas asss and grass are the motivations of the Corrupt-governments fueling prostitution, capitalism, ignorance and war. And people go full in with complete obliviousness to the consequences every time sexual liberation becomes evident.

The Debate is about: the WAY (REFERENCES) people make REGARDING SCIENCE; NOt the Practice of Science itself.
YOu are 100% off base and thus far have provided nothing to the debate PowerPickachu21. as a Notice.

Also, the side note about Newton. was a side note**

But if you want me to make specific references, to fallacies in the Scientific References people like to make,
let us talk about some extremely pricy government embezzlements which advocate prostitution, negligence and capitalism. ~

Dinosaurs: The scientists may or may not have actually done the research. The fact of the matter is there is zero proof. The research could have been squashed by capitalist mercenary groups to specifically contest/test the will of God, because atheism increases female whoredom participants.
The finding, whatever they were, easily can be applied to a false Theory, or in any case can be misinterpreted. The validity of the findings are 100% unreliable. Especially since Carbon Dating, logically cannot date something back beyond human activity. Carbon Dating formula's do not account for weather, humidity, sun exposure, submersion, catastrophe etc... and thus have zero relativity once: the factual pattern-retated data regarding molecular composure No longer is founded on observed facts.
The fact is that the Behemoth mentioned in the bible has a tail like a ceder tree, it's skin repelled arrows, and it was capable of standing on it's hind legs. sounds rather dinosaur like. BUT,
People say It is proven dinosaurs didn't walk with humans, and that they are ancient... That is a false claim. and the actual sciences cannot be referenced.

that was two points^^ referencing dinosaurs, and supporting it with carbon dating. There is no evidence anyone in the professional field of carbon dating ever actual believed in it. They were just paid large sums of money which they could then use to pay the dinosaur-theory-converts to atheist whores.

BUt let's have fun with Space travel.
There is zero concrete evidence, or reliable evidence to suggest that human beings have ever left the atmosphere.
The international space stations and all satellites are factually and admittedly (by the International space ascociations) in the atmosphere.
The space exploration organization is a multi billion dollar organization which works avidly to convert people to atheism to encourage funding in space exploration instead of poverty.
The space agencies OWN all satellites that transfer your information and media data which was paid to be broadcast to you.
They are also war agencies.
100% unreliable are all and any references made by people to "SCiences" in that field.

We are not attacking scientific method, we are attacking "Modern scientific methods referenced by people on the internet and in public."

the fact of the matter is,
That the chart of elements is not even USED in the scientific field. It is irrelevant to all scientific discoveries in the field of atomic physicist. They do not use it.
and anyone who thinks that being able to look at molecules counts as scientific application needs to evaluate the function of such an act. Being the function of such an act would be the reference to science which is being attacked ~ Redundance.

Also. Atoms remain 100% theoretical. they have not been observed. FACT.
molecules are theoretical. FACT.

Time travel is 100% impossible. FACT - Now is the full accumulation of the Universe in its current state. To time travel, the entire cosmos would need to be rearranged. Otherwise the object, which could not be followed through time, would need to be Impossibly calculated to appear wh-
Alright. I'mma make this simple.
1.) In order to Time travel, you must have the exact perfect calculation.
2.) without the perfect calculation the item will not time travel. So, how can you dial the calculation to specific time transfer?
3.) there would be no evidence the item moved, BUT, the universe would be destroyed if it did.
4.) if the universe somehow didn't exist in reality and we pretend that the universe doesn't destroy itself. There is still zero methods available to recalculate and "focus" the algorithm to a desired location.
etc.. there is a lot to time travel. Many ways that prove it is impossible. But the math CANNOT ever be done. Because you must account for every single atomic element in the universe prior. AH HA

Teleporting. also impossible. A breeze would change the Path of travel between points A and B by innumerable/ immeasurable differences in atomic and electromagnetic differences. When working with a device like that, the entire electromagnetic field would fluctuate from something as simple as a coffee glass on either end, or anywhere between.

what more..

well. people say the Big Bang is Fact.. 100% belligerence. I can however prove the third day of creation happened.. it left a geological mark. But that is not relative tot his debate. and if you choose to attack me on it. You aiding my debate. If you wish to discuss it, contact me.

Archeology. Saying a stone arrow head is 10 000 years old. there is zero foundation to come to that conclusion. Zero. FAct.

the debate is about, People putting faith in the things their corrupt capitalist government needs them to believe in in order to stay uncontested. Because people are morons.

I am attacking more than 60% of the people here and far, PowerPickachu21.
thank you.
PowerPikachu21

Con

Actually, I realized something. Pro's not going to take any evidence I throw at him. So instead of purely defending my position of "Science is true", I'll be briefly saying things about why the points Pro provided me with are not theoretical. Not using science, but, if possible, with reasoning.

Arguments:

Dinosaurs; When you think about it, this feels like something a Creationist would come up with to try to disprove evolution. There is proof of dinosaurs existing: fossils. Pro: "But they faked fossils! Dinosaurs don't exist!" Thanks, I'll get to that right now! I'm pretty sure archeologists exist, who actually dig up fossils. REAL fossils. Pro: "But you didn't dig up any fossils!" I haven't dug up fossils, and I'm not planning to. BUT! That DOES NOT MEAN fossils don't exist. (Sorry if I'm offending Pro, but I bet objecting to his Round 4 objections. Just to get that out of the way.)

Space Travel:

NASA's currently trying to get to Mars's surface. They're using slimmer space suits to walk around easier as well, but they could only fit it to women. I have seen a video some time ago about this, so I know the suits exist. Pro: "But you've never been to Mars!" I'm not an astronaut. If the voters want to find a link, please do.

Atoms:

Pro states that atoms are theoretical. That they have never been observed. I beg to -- Pro: "You never saw one!" I will get to that point later. I could spend a lot of money for a very expensive microscope and look at a penny to see it's protons and neutrons, but I'm not rich! And plus, I trust authority enough to -- Pro: "They get paid to lie!" Sorry if I'm making you seem annoying, but it just... THAT POINT you're using. I'll get to that much later.

Time Travel and Teleportation:

I agree with you. Time travel and teleportation are science FICTION. I have never said anything about time travelling and teleporting existing. Pro: "You conceded!" I did not concede, actually. Fictional TV shows like the idea of time travel, so they put it in said shows. We are not inclined to believe in those, time travel is just a cool idea in science fiction.

Big Bang:

I'm pretty sure the Big Bang is indeed just a hypothesis. Without being in Futurama, we will never know the story of the beginning of the world.

And now for my long awaited rebuttal!

Pro's 1st idea: "I have never seen it."

A majority of Pro's entire argument is "I have not seen it, therefore it might not be true". I haven't seen the results of this debate yet, but I know for a fact that you're not going to forfeit Round 4. I know for a fact Markiplier posts videos, even tough I haven't snuck into his house. Pro is committing a logical fallacy. The fallacy is that because I haven't seen something directly, therefore science may not be true. I know this connects directly to the 2nd idea, I'll show this now.

Pro's 2nd idea: "The government lies"

Prove it. Show me proof of the government deceiving us. Why make up science at all? It's actually what is allowing me to type up my argument to you. Science is why we have airplanes. Science is why [insert anything science has done to improve daily life]! If science benefits life, why, even how, would the government lie about science?

Pro's (possibly unintentional) error: "Science may or may not be real"

You say that science may not be true. "May not"? I asked you to disprove science. You responded with "The scientists may or may not have actually done the research", "Atoms remain 100% theoretical", "Saying a stone arrow head is 10 000 years old. there is zero foundation to come to that conclusion". Science "may" exist. That is the problem here. You claimed dinosaurs "may not" have existed. You haven't fulfilled your BoP yet. Prove dinosaurs existing is IMPOSSIBLE!

It's nice that I may have been deceived, but have I? You provided only the possibility of the government lying, but not the proof.

Good luck.
Debate Round No. 3
GoOrDin

Pro

I encourage everyone to read my previous arguments while I take this time to laugh at how my opponent wrongly came to the conclusion that, "dinosaurs don't exist" was a part of my argument. As he was clearly not even remotely on topic the entire debate, and didn't pay attention to a single thing I said. While he presented endless amount of - "We ARE trying to land on Mars. just 30 trillion more dollars and we're there. we know this because we're using slim suits."
PowerPikachu21

Con

I apologize to Pro, as I most likely hurt his feelings. Anyways, on to my conclusion.

Pro's entire case hinged on the fact that the government is lying to us. However, I don't see any proof of the government lying, or any reason why they'd lie. Sure humans love money, but we've been getting more advanced since the 19th century. This alone, is proof that science does exist. Without science, we'd still have sailboats, giant computers, and we'd lack cures to many illnesses. I doubt there's a reason for someone to prefer $1,000,000 rather than working on cures for plagues.

Pro dropped my round 3 arguments, saying I went "off topic". I addressed his arguments head on. Sure my Mars example was a bit flimsy, but science still stands. Pro, sadly, just ignored my Round 3 arguments almost entirely.

This debate was about "I didn't see a thing, therefore that thing may not be true". I get where Pro's coming from, but he only shown the possibility of science being "made up". I have shown that science exists and helps our daily life, Pro was unable to show how, let's say, we already have a cure for Ebola, and Obama won't cure it now. BoP was on Pro, he didn't fulfill it. Vote the winner!

NOTE: If you prefer Pro over Con, or vice versa, explain why in your vote.
Debate Round No. 4
97 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by palmertio0 1 year ago
palmertio0
;:)

shame ur dumb
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
;:)

shame u haven't acknowledged the discussion
Posted by palmertio0 1 year ago
palmertio0
Sorry, but there is no burn. I'm not in denial of cosmic truths, you are.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
OHHH!!! BURRRNNN!!! - kelso knows ur a fool for fawks sakes
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
yeah... blasphemy. that si what I said

and u said the Tree was 9000+ years old u putz
Posted by palmertio0 1 year ago
palmertio0
How did I admit I was wrong?
Posted by palmertio0 1 year ago
palmertio0
No, the official Merriam-Webster definition of blasphemy is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
AH HA HA. thank u for admitting that u were wrong.

now. Blasphemy is denial of cosmic truths.
Posted by palmertio0 1 year ago
palmertio0
This isn't a negotiation. It's a debate.

I quote again, "continuous clonal series dating back to the early Holocene (9500 cal. yr BP)"
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
first u admit the flaw u made in scientific reference regarding the tree.
No votes have been placed for this debate.