Nassim Haramein's unified theory enters mainstream science!

[Scepcop]

[ProfWag]

[ProfWag]

[Arouet]

[Scepcop]

Arouet, are you claiming that scientists can say whatever they want? Do you deny that if they question global warming, evolution, etc. that they will lose their job and funding? Power controls. We all know that. So why do you assume that scientists are freethinking people who are allowed to say whatever they want and only care about the truth, and do not care about consequences, such as losing their job, position, career, funding, etc.? Isn't that a major fallacy that you aren't considering?

I've already shown you a film where many science professors were kicked out of their positions for questioning evolution. So it's true. You assume that science is a freethinking world that only cares about truth and has no control from the power structure. Is that your claim?

[Arouet]

[Mystery]

[ProfWag]

[Mystery]

[Mystery]

We're moving away from the main topic with all this.

The original thread is about what is *confirmed* by scientists.

This provides a solid foundation to understand the world and build technologies.

The more advanced and esoteric stuff is a whole other topic.

[ProfWag]

[Scepcop]

Here is a nice promo video for a Nassim event.



Btw, Nassim won an award for Best Physics Paper. That's really something. You skeptics should humble yourself and try to learn from others.

[Arouet]

[ProfWag]

[chosenbygrace]

[quote="Arouet]it means that its the best we have under current circumstances.[/quote]

You're being bigoted when you say that, because Mainstreamers who say that say that while pretending that creationists and saved Christians don't count as scientists or are poor scientists, which is bigotry being that it's said contrary to the evidence. Plus, it wouldn't even be right for saved Christians etc. to say, because concensus NEVER even hints at truth. NEVER. The only thing a concensus is evidence for is that there's a consensus on something, however large or small the consensus is. It's as bad as saying, "Well the more strongly I feel about something the better I know it's probably true," how so? Mainstreamer's are always confused over how to determine truth and tripping over themselves on that subject. You're statement and Wikipedia is a good example. Wikipedia simultaneously claims it's not about truth, yet all over that wacky propagandiapedia they cite that there's a concensus as evidence of something being true, especially against Christians. They do it with global warming, the Big Bang, Relativity, evolution and their claim that the part of the Bible before King Solomon's time is myth. You can determine what is true through reason and your physical senses and lesser so, your heart, a corrupt and unreliable tool, and have FAITH that you are right, faith, because we aren't perfect in knowledge and wisdom and prone to deception. Even when there is a consensus in judgement in a court by a group of judges, that doesn't mean a thing is true; if they are moral judges whose senses work, and they had sufficient evidence necessary for making a good judgment on a case, and there was no conflict of interest, and they have demonstrated being trustworhy their whole lives, then at best you can have faith they made a JUST and correct decision, but not necessarily correct or ultimately just, because they may have been lied to or misunderstood something. Judges in highly populated cities are under pressure to get a case done quickly, so they don't, unfortunately, always or usually spend their time examing the trustworthiness of a witness unless another witness is called to point out the person is known for lying.