Replies

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 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..."

As I explained to another poster:

"My post was NOT to defend 'Dark Matter' specifically, but rather the SCIENTIFIC PROCESS that is investigating it."

How does your computer work, there? Can you "see" the electrons whizzing around to transmit your posts to Free Republic? No? Didn't think so. There are MANY things in this reality that cannot be seen by the naked eye, yet can be harnessed and understood by Man's intellect. The computer you are using is direct proof of that. You are probably sitting underneath a flourescent light that is emitting light due to the excitation of "unseen" atoms. Your kitchen no doubt has a 'fridge with a compressor turned by an electric motor spun by "invisible" magnetic fields. Your last bout with a cold was caused by a virus too small to be seen attacking your body's individual cells, which are also too small to be seen. Your health was restored by the work of antibodies too small to be seen.

When testing for something that cannot be seen with the naked eye or other instrument, you attack the problem by looking for the EFFECTS it would cause on things you CAN see and measure. This is actual science. Theories get updated, revised, and if necessary, REJECTED, based upon evidence collected. Those ideas which yeild productive results are retained. Those that cannot be supported by the evidence are cast aside. It is the FUNDAMENTAL MECHANISM for LEARNING NEW THINGS.

The Bible will not tell you how to build a motor, or a microscope, or a telescope, or create a vaccine, or where to drill for oil, or how Nuclear Fusion works. That is not a deficiency, as the Bible is not a science or engineering text. It is a deficiency to try to use it like one.

“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...”

God can’t be seen or tested either. By your own definition that makes God a fairy tale.

You should probably come up with a better test for ‘fairy tale’.