How long will it take for humanity to surpass SW technology wise?

Neb, this is why you fail so much.
We do not "apply telekinesis" to our own bodies.
First, Definitions:

Merriam Webster Online:
the production of motion in objects (as by a spiritualistic medium) without contact or other physical means
Dictionary.com:
n. The movement of objects by scientifically inexplicable means, as by the exercise of an occult power.
Macmillan Online:
the power to move or change the shape of objects using your mind

It seems that you are not looking at this as specifically as is required.

Telekinesis has a necessarily metaphysical connotation (as evidenced by def. 2). The attempt to muddy the waters with the mind-body problem is an admirable gambit, but ultimately futile. We understand the mechanisms of movement quite well. There is no need to invoke 'GodMagic does is' because there is nothing for Godmagic to do.

The pertinent quote:

Voluntary actions are contractions generated by the cerebral cortex in response to a perceived need.

If you want to discuss the motivations and factors deciding the specific voluntary actions then feel free. There are vast bodies of writing for each of a dazzling array of camps on the mind-body problem. Calling voluntary actions telekinesis, however, is disingenuous and inaccurate. They do not fit the common usage (of external metaphysical manipulation) and are sufficiently quantified such that invoking supernaturalism to explain their mechanics is silly.

Also:

what Science may suggest which I am personally rather dismissive of in the first place,

Both Dr. Robotnik and Ironhide are disappointed.

Whom is Ironhide?

And no.

Exercising some required concision, what your point of distinction appears to be is as follows:

1. Telekinesis as per one of many applicable definitions of the word is of a metaphysical nature.

2. Science is able to explain this specific relationship between thought and matter.

3. Ergo, thought creating physical effects it is not an application of telekinesis.

Problems:

1. You're treating one of many definitions of the word "telekinesis" as either an absolute definition or at the very least one that definitively applies in this situation, which you are not in a position to do.

2. You have not explained in clear, precise, concise and literal terms how science is able to explain this fundamental link between thought and matter.

Jim, this is why you get flamed so much.

Originally posted by Mr Omiverseria
Whom is Ironhide?

God damnit.

Originally posted by Slash_KMC
God damnit.

Originally posted by Slash_KMC
God damnit.

i think a "Holy Shit" is in order as well...

Originally posted by Mr Omiverseria
Exercising some required concision, what your point of distinction appears to be is as follows:

1. Telekinesis as per one of many applicable definitions of the word is of a metaphysical nature.

2. Science is able to explain this specific relationship between thought and matter.

3. Ergo, thought creating physical effects it is not an application of telekinesis.

Problems:

1. You'are treating one of many definitions of the word "telekinesis" as either an absolute definition or at the very least one that definitively applies in this situation, which you are not in a position to do.

2. You have not explained in clear, precise, concise and literal terms how science is able to explain this fundamental link between thought and matter.

okay, seems we're loosing ourselves in a battle of the big words...telekinesis is defined as minipulation of an object or thing that is not in contact with the body...therefore, suggesting that moving an arm or leg in a partcular way is biology, not supernatural telekinesis...

...

Problems:

1. You're treating one of many definitions of the word "telekinesis" as either an absolute definition or at the very least one that definitively applies in this situation, which you are not in a position to do.

2. You have not explained in clear, precise, concise and literal terms how science is able to explain this fundamental link between thought and matter.

Jim, this is why you get flamed so much.

Nebaris, I agree with my sworn enemy. You are as dumb as they come.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Which would take an unrealistic amount of energy. Not to mention, it's not even clear as to what effect this would have on a human body.

I'm not even saying that we will find a way to travel through space, but these guys seem to on the right track (at least given what we presently know about distorting space).

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Except that I am.

Except that y NO

You are not.

My argument essentially states: if we were to assume a causal relationship between the decision to make a physical motion, and the physical motion to take place, then by definition, telekinesis is required (thought creating material change) to meet this assumption.

Your counter argument assumes a definition of the word "telekinesis" THAT I WAS NOT EVEN USING!!! to establish that telekinesis (per your definition) is not required. By adjusting the definition that I was using and then assuming that definition when addressing the form of my argument you are not only committing a straw man fallacy but the rarely used fallacy of equivocation!

It isn't my job to read your links. As per the rules of debate, it is your job to present the evidence that you are using in accordance with the debating principles of relevance and accessibility. I do not have to go out of my way to filter through whatever you're linking me to (I didn't click it) to uphold my part in this debate.

Good day!

I stand by what I was saying earlier. It's entirely possible that we can only apply telekinesis on our own bodies because our ability to think (which telekinesis is an application of) is interconnected and interdependent with our senses and our bodies represent the physical location and source of our senses. Valid thoughts on the matter?

Originally posted by Allankles
I'm not even saying that we will find a way to travel through space, but these guys seem to on the right track (at least given what we presently know about distorting space).

Yes, because you have ANY kind of credibility here..

Respond to my rebuttal Beef.

Yeah... that's what I thought. Concession accepted.

Poor Nebaris. After 100 bans he still can't win an argument.

According to whom?

Originally posted by Mr Omiverseria
According to whom?

According to everyone on this forum who is familiar with you🙂

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Yes, because you have ANY kind of credibility here..

And.. you pointed out something obvious that had nothing to do with what I posted.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Which would take an unrealistic amount of energy. Not to mention, it's not even clear as to what effect this would have on a human body.

I wasn't looking for an argument. I'm hoping you can avoid being an idiot in this thread. I'm actually concerned for you.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
According to everyone on this forum who is familiar with you🙂

And whom might they be?