The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

This is an example of how the mdern science industry is flawed in it's reaonsing

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: 3/25/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 774 times Debate No: 88780
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (45)
Votes (0)




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.

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.


Since Pro makes the claim how the modern science industry is flawed in it's reaonsing, then he/she should produce an evidence for claim. As one great wise person said, an example is not an evidence. But, let's treat it as evidence. Then Pro should have assessed it rationally and logically (free from fallacies). Here is what Pro needs to do in order to convince us for the truth of claim:
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).
Debate Round No. 1


Alright, I have bene postponing this debate for a long time, because you put a lot of pressure on me;
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.

3.) ESP
+ 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 stimuli
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."



1. The status of Science 2.0 doesn't matter anymore, I found original article on net. Here are links :

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....
Debate Round No. 2


you established hay man.


If "you established hay man" is some kind of idiom, then I didn't get it. You did not present any argument for your claim, for me to assess. I highly suggest you study epistemology, and related to this topic, more specifically empirical method and inductive reasoning.
Debate Round No. 3
45 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GoOrDin 6 months ago
yeah. well. your entire last round was redundant. You didn't have one thing of merit. hence I didn't respond to that point / those points.
U were not addressing my claim at all.

I had fun. ty
Posted by tahirimanov 6 months ago
44 comments but no votes.
Posted by GoOrDin 6 months ago
being raised in a Muslim house does not make you even 1% Muslim by the way**
Posted by GoOrDin 6 months ago
I wasn't using 'stupid' as an insult. stupid can be as temporal as 'hungry'
Posted by GoOrDin 6 months ago
God shares his authority with everyone who does not ask God for a variable Quality of the truth from the truth.
Wisdom is available for all who do not associate foolishness with anything, or wisdom with the latter.

Only seek THE LIGHT and you shall receive it.
Say, "give me the light." but say to yourself, one which will vindicate idiocy. And you will forever be in the dark. No light exists.

But if you look in the Light, you will see the cures and causes of idiocy. You need only be humble enough to admit the Light is present eternally.

Amen brotha.
good question.
Posted by GoOrDin 6 months ago
I was stipulating that if,
"You are wrong about truth. Nothing is 100% true, may be except logical axioms."

indicates that your last remark... was either the efficient use of logic, or ... LOL


need I continue? I wasn't attacking you. I asserted an, 'if' for fun. because I thought I could provoke you. :P
Posted by tahirimanov 6 months ago
Ok, let me define the terms
Truth - the state or quality of being true, the real facts about something, idea or statement that is true..
Fact - a thing that is indisputably the case, something that truly exists or happens, a true piece of information.
Thus the terms Truth and Fact can be used interchangeably. You are right by claiming that observations don't make facts true, because by definition facts are true, that is why we call them facts.
And also, of course it's not a religious debate (I personally don't like the term "religion"), it is about how tests and experiments are conducted, and generalisations made from them.
And at last, what does the statement "if he reflects upon his religion with the same inefficiency that he has put into this debate" mean, did God share his Authority with you, and forgot telling about it to us? (It's a rhetorical question, I don't seek an answer.) Questioning person's inefficiency in DEEN belongs to Allah, doesn't it?
Posted by GoOrDin 6 months ago
No, I am not biased towards religious beliefs. Honestly and humility is person reflection*** It is something atheists do not attest to.
his religion was not relevant to the content of the discussion, but to his personal behaviour. It was a relevant comment, which did not merit, the previous response,
"Posted by random_noob 4 hours ago
It was a religious debate all along, we just hadn't realized. You are talking about different things. You are talking about science, GoOrDin is talking about religion.

Posted by Blade0886 5 hours ago
Huh, is it me or is this turning into a religious debate? I thought we were talking about science?"
Posted by Blade0886 6 months ago
You were the one who introduced religion in this "conversation", if you will, when there was no need to. You shouldn't have invoked your opponent's religion, when it has no bearing to the case at hand. Also, "u argue with too many atheists" proves just how much bias towards certain religious beliefs you are to the point where you'll let it cloud your judgement. But hey, "don't feed the troll" is the first rule of the Internet, and so I won't be continuing this further. I am sorry in advance. for Con to having to put up with this
Posted by GoOrDin 6 months ago
this is not even remotely about religion. As idiots you just immediately associate anything your incompetent to argue as being something you'll sue insolence as your tactic to delude yourself into thinking your smart enough to suggest you've made a point.

I'm competent and coherent. And your all presumptuous pretenders.

my opponents profile says he's Islamic. and if he reflects upon his religion with the same inefficiency that he has put into this debate, then he needs give the world a Finger and remember allah above man.

that is un-contingent to the debate. this is discussion.
No votes have been placed for this debate.