This is an example of how the mdern science industry is flawed in it's reaonsing
Debate Rounds (3)
this article should be used as critically acclaimed evidence that the academic society is flawed in their reasoning.
This is a prime example of how atheists, and sorry to bring it up again here, think.
1. The Science20 is genuine, well established and commonly accepted scientific journal/blog.
2. The testimony of HU for conducting such experiment. The second hand testimony is not valid, unless it is verified by source.
3. The definitions of ESP stimuli and non-ESP stimuli. And how it is a contradiction.
4. The evidence for invalidity and incoherency of generalisation and statistical analysis used in experiment.
5. Strong and cogent argument for science being flawed just using given example.
6. What all of these have to do with atheists? (PS. I am not an atheist).
Fairly distributed obligations.
I was actually hard pressed the first time I read them, to even understand what you were saying,
"1. The Science20 is genuine, well established and commonly accepted scientific journal/blog."
>>I didn't see why I would need to prove Science2.0 was valid. I was asserting they were not.
>>But what you wanted from me, was to present proof that this was actually people with reliable affiliation or resources in the Applicable-Science world.
and to be honest I can't.
**That is a reoccurring issue with all information found on the internet.
If the same article is used in every since website. That doesn't prove it is a factual experiment or event. Though this particular one is a very popular article.
Propaganda, Paid distribution, ignorant Sponsorship by web providers, as well as Gossip all impair the ability of an internet reader to verify whether information is true. It becomes a huge pile of dung (elephant crap.)
This is also a problem with the modern Academic community.
But you are right. I cannot claim that Science2.0 has any affiliation with the Science Industry, nor that this article was conducted by an accomplished Scientist.
>>>Now, I want to make it clear I am not stating ESP is real as my debate. I am attacking these methods of research, and associating them with common behaviour in the scientific community.<<>I find that to be a point, I had not even considered before hand. It was just a contingent portion of the grand problem, which likely increased the significance of the original premonition I had. Thanks for asking.
+ clairvoyance (awareness of current events/thoughts/emotions/+desires or the capacity to discern truth from fiction.)
+ telepathy - the ability to speak to people with the mind, potentially even in different times of history.
+ premonition - the ability to predict the future, indirectly or directly, intentionally or through omens.
ESP being applied to subject (person, object, animal or otherwise... :s otherwise? lol)
4.) I answered this question *("4. The evidence for invalidity and incoherency of generalisation and statistical analysis used in experiment.")
this article is stupid. If ESP was real, we would always be subject to ESP stimuli, so you cannot stipulate that there was no evidence of change when ESP stimuli was used, to suggests no ESP is present.
5.) If I only use this example. I can assert that:
~ he Got published by many, many articles which wanted to claim they were academics.
~He had students who were interested in the scientific evaluation, actually finish the test, and he still got published.
~he was apposed for his false methods enough to contend with his internet popularity. meaning people had more interest in this, then hearing someone say that he was wrong to attempt this method.
~the practical application of theory used here was actually used here. LOL why? who permitted that?
~This man is one among many, many people who share this characteristic of either intentionally making fools of people, or asserting the experiment was a scientific endeavor in the first place. None the less, we get ESP stimuli as the "research" that we have not considered conclusive. Which is nonsense because ESP indicates we are always under ESP stimuli so they'd have huge numbers of intervening energies.
~the point is. If ESP is always present, you can't expect a change you do not know how to recognize, by applying ESP.
~more over, if ESP was real, there would be reasons that the connections they were looking for simply never manifested.
This is all relevant to atheists because they are so gullible, and quickly rush to make any accusations that there can be no God. Any whatsoever. They claim research like this for funding, or to sabotage funding, or outside a scientific experiment and claim it a science for self gain in the other hand. Religious people never do that; That would imply they lack faith in God.
Because I answered your questions here. I will assert this was my Rebuttal round. And I want you to do the same thing.
And focus on primarily debating my first Round submissions. Not just these explanations of the minutia.
I will explain How this is Common practice in the modern Science Industry Next.
It is stipulable that the The Moon, in fact logically, Has no Gravitational pull.
We do not weigh less when the moon is in the sky, specifically during the day.
We do not jump farther in the direction of the moon.
We do not get lighter when the sun is in the sky.
Hence, The observed effects associated with Gravity have another cause.
Yet, behold. The mass sums of ... I can't think of a polite word. LOL XD ahahaha. I hope u know me a little XD
another example of false practices are,
~funding quantum theory.
~Black hole "research"
~animals causing sexual disease being taught as an impossibility in schools. (causes congenial infections.)
~evolution being tested as Fact, through less than theory (undeveloped theory, with no evidence).
~Carbon dating (having no reference point ("C14 half life being 5000+ years") to prove it has any accuracy) being used to delude the population.
~suggesting that we have better philosophers now then in previous generations of man. Claiming e have a better understanding of our world. People knew we had infinite stars in a boundless universe, and that there was energy in everything (a fire), and that smaller things were inside every thing, continually smaller. That there were other planets, and moons.
+People knew then, as they know now, how to prove God's glory is real.
People chose atheistic theories not because they believe them, but because they say, "HA, we have no proof. Yet we are smarter then religious people. Let us gossip these words, out of enmity to lazy men to vindicate their lack of motives for them. And let us fund these expeditions for the rich to exploit us further. Let us, delight in these stupid things as though they bring us joy, so that the future generations will be to stupid to recall the wisdom passed down through generations called scripture."
2. Both stimuli presented visually, but also Esp stimuli presented telepathically, clairvoyancly, precognitionly. Hence you didn't present any reason against experiment, read the article, and present counter-argument. All test is shows that there's no evidence for Esp. The neuroimaging was used to see how brain would react to stimuli.
3. You did not answer the "The evidence for invalidity and incoherency of generalisation and statistical analysis used in experiment". I hope you know what evidence is.
4. "He got..., he had..., he was..." Who is this he you are talking about. Please be more clear. And what does "~the practical application of theory used here was actually used here" mean? If you wanted to make tautology, you succeeded.
5. There are people in every community who are gullible, and quickly rush to make any accusations. I can give you one example from your community.
7. You can not stipulate Moon doesn't have Gravitational pull, logically because claim itself is empirical. The reason we do not jump farther in the direction of the Moon is a=G*M/r^2 (F=ma=GMm/r^2).
8. Please, don't yeah Me.
9. Thanks to Quantum Theory, we had IT revolution, and thanks to Black Hole we will have FTL Drive.
10. You did not present any evidence for your claim. Still waiting....
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.