Replies

"...hilarious when the whole house of cards is built on non existant, non visible, ‘dark’ matter..."

You can't "see" wind, but you can observe it's effects.

In fact, you cannot "see" the individual molecules of air that compose the wind, but you can observe their cumulative effects.

You cannot "see" gravity, but I would be willing to bet that you RESPECT the effects you observe.

You cannot "see" the electrons that were pushed around to post your message or this reply.

The BIG difference between SCIENCE and "creationist fairy tales" is that Scientists will go out and measure observable effects and attempt to explain them. When a "scientific" explanation fits the observed data, it is considered the "best" explanation to date. When NEW information is collected (by making observations, conducting experiments, you know, that whole "research" thing) that DOES NOT FIT the current model, scientists re-evaluate the models, looking for weaknesses and the means to IMPROVE understanding. This is not a fault in science, this IS SCIENCE.

This is how ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE expands and improves. If you just argue about what a couple of thousand year old text has to say, whether it is the Bible, or the Koran or the Epic of Gilgamesh, you're going to be stuck with 2000 year old world views.

riiiiiiiiiiiiiight...

the articles first two lines basically say the same thing:

As modern cosmologists rely more and more on the ominous “dark matter” to explain otherwise inexplicable observations, much effort has gone into the detection of this mysterious substance in the last two decades, yet no direct proof could be found that it actually exists. Even if it does exist, dark matter would be unable to reconcile all the current discrepancies between actual measurements and predictions

I will stick with the truth of Christ, you can stick with man made fairy tales about dark matter that cant be seen or tested, etc...

I always start getting—ah—nervous when physics starts relying on an ‘invisible & undetectable’ thing to explain observations. When a theory relies on something that cannot be tested, you’re in trouble. It’s the same problem I had with the various ‘string—super-string’ theories.

Remember ‘Phlogiston’(sp?) physics?

Personally, I’m leaning toward lots more hydrogen than assumed. And maybe one of the ‘open’ universe hypothesis’.

>If you just argue about what a couple of thousand year old text has to say, whether it is the Bible, or the Koran or the Epic of Gilgamesh, you’re going to be stuck with 2000 year old world views.

That is untrue. Arguing, in the classical-logic sense is a good way to gain understanding, and to convey that actual knowledge. As some have said “words mean things”, but as experience shows there are fewer who truly understand this; when someone who does corrects someone who does not it is usually received as a personal attack or, very often, as being pedantic/legalistic