Modern science is too primitive to validly discount unexplainable supernatural phenomena.

I thank Con for rejoining the debate. I will first address the counterpoints my opponent mentioned.Primitive is defined as:2b. primitive - adj. crude, simple, rough, uncivilized, etc. [1]"Science is the opposite of primitive. We have lots of technology..."The existence or use of technology does not symbolize the opposite of primitive. In fact, advanced technology used in a deleterious manner can symbolize a primitive society. For example, the use of radiation or chemotherapy to treat cancer can be seen as primitive because there are known holistic treatments that have proven to be more effective and less toxic. Yet, as most know, in the pockets of the pharmaceudical industry there is no money in the cure - the money is in the treatment. In the future, I am sure current medical practices such as carcinogenic vaccines, radiation therapies and chemotherapy will be viewed as savage, crude or primitive. "In 1986, the McGill Cancer Center scientists surveyed 118 oncologists who specialized in lung cancer. They were asked if they would take chemo if they developed lung cancer. Three-quarters replied they would not...Why is conventional chemotherapy still pushed by the vast majority of oncologists?...traditional oncologists are in a very difficult position because they've been trained to give these drugs. And they've devoted many years to reaching a very high level of expertise in the knowledge of poisonous, deadly compounds. They want to help the cancer patient, yet the tools they've been given don't work, he said." [2]Also, due to the narrow mindedness and solipsism of modern science, the so cslled "savage or primitive" technologies developed in many ancient socities have yet to be explained. Examples would include:the Pyramids of Giza - "...debate over how the pyramids were built is almost as ancient as the pyramids themselves. A 1956 article in the journal Archaeology describes how speculation about construction methods dates back to ancient Greece and continues unabated." [3]THE ANTIKYTHERA MECHANISM "...it has been x-rayed many times using evermore advanced equipment.Working reconstructions have been made and entire research groups established to unlock the secrets of its manufacture and its purpose. Its existence has challenged many preconceived ideas regarding the technological abilities of the ancient civilisations." [4]There are many other examples, yet, that is not the focus of this debate. Needless to say events such as Hiroshima, Nagasaki, 3 mile island, Chernobyl and Fukushima illustrate that knowledge of a technology does not necessarily mean a society is mature or advanced enough to wield the power it offers. The destructive use of certain technologies (i.e. geoenginering, fossilfuels etc.) has also been considered the cause of global warming and toxic pollution levels."...The same goes for gravity...does not affect if it will ever be answered...doesn't mean that something that has been studied for years will never be answered..." Again, the assertion clearly refers to modern science (science to date). Developments that 'may' be developed at an indeterminable later date will have to be classified as future science. "...About sleep, the example given is an anomaly..."The example given does prove that everyone does not require a set period of sleep to regenerate or continue living. As for the experiment, "The young man involved recovered after a few days, during which he slept only somewhat more than normal, and seemed none the worse for wear." [5] Interestingly, sleep seems to contradit the survival assumption of evolution as "...animals are particularly vulnerable while sleeping, there must be advantages that outweigh this considerable disadvantage." [5]I will use the remainder of this final rounf to address portions of the assertion that my opponent dismissed or overlooked"1. Dreams - While my opponent partially explained the need for some amount of sleep, he has yet to provide modern science's explanation for dreams.2. The Pacebo Effect - This phenomenon has been well documented, yet, remains a mystery to modern science. 3. Why birds migrate - This phenomena seems to insinuate that birds developed the first GPS mechanism.4. Genetic memory of the monarch butterfly - How do the children of monarch butterflies know how to migrate to the exact point where the parents departed from six months earlier?5. Telekinesis, Telepathy and other forms of ESP - Science continues to deny the existence of these phenomena although many have claimed to experience them.Narrow-mindedness narrow-minded - adjective 1. having or showing a prejudiced mind, as persons or opinions; biased. 2.not receptive to new ideas; having a closed mind. [6] Modern science, in my opinion, is very narrow minded and biased. Mental programming or training can be very hard to negate and thus modern scientists are usually willing to take their theories to the grave. I merely suggest or assert that, if we are to be honest, these programs or fields of study are just that - theories. "The reason one should be open-minded about hew theories should hardly need stating: Where else do new scientific discoveries, breakthroughs, developments come from, if not from those brave and clever enough to challenge the current orthodoxy? Open-mindedness is a prerequisite for creativity, the willingness to look for and construct new patterns of information from new types of associations between events. The creative scientist is open-minded, the uncreative narrow-minded. Scientific discoveries require an expansion of the mind to explore new possibilities, not a contraction to admit only that which has already been confirmed." [7] While I do not support the entire agenda of transhumanism, I agree with this analysis. I am not against modern science, yet, I am always on guard for attempts to limit or stifle the creative spark.Solipsistic Solipsistic - adjective 1. of or characterized by solipsism, or the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist: [8]When I refer to modern science as being solipsistic, I am implying that moderrn science functions as if its theories or proofs are the only thing which have true meaning. In that modern scientist seem to espouse that their theories are the only things which exist or that can be proven to exist. The fact that several scientific theories once held as truths or constants have been disproved should illustrate the error in such types of thinking. Examples of superseded scientific theories include but are not limited to:1. The earth is flat2. The geocentric universe3. The heliocentric universe4. The Caloric theory [9]I maintain that until science can quantify, explain and duplicate events and phenomena in the known universe it cannot validly discount unexplainable or supernatural phenomena. In my opinion, the universe (or multiverse) has too much congruity and order for its origin to have been coincidence or chaos. Modern science offers the Big Bang theory as evidence of the beginning, yet, cannot fully explain what caused t he Big Bang or what existed before that. As a theory, the Big Bang is uneventful. The congruity and order alone is proof that there was a consciousness involved in the creation of the universe (multiverse). For now, I suppose, this consciousness will remain unexplained and supernatural in the eyes of modern science.I thank my opponent in advance for his participation.http://www.yourdictionary.com... [1]http://www.euro-med.us... [2]http://daily.jstor.org... [3]http://www.aquiziam.com... [4]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [5]http://dictionary.reference.com... [6]Designer Evolution: A Transhumanist Manifesto, pg 102, Simon Young, 2005 [7]http://dictionary.reference.com... [8]https://en.wikipedia.org... [9]