Miss_Tery

Dark Matter 6 Dark Matter 5 Dark Matter 1
Dark Matter 2
Dark Matter 3
Dark Matter 4

 

That is very informative and I believe you have posted some of that before. But none of it explains how or why dark matter relates to the universe speeding up at apparent odds to what we currently know. In fact, this passage supports the fact that they don't have any idea how it works:

Also, I have yet to see anywhere say that they can prove - based on your standards - what dark matter is.

 

i think you're shooting down your own argument. they don't claim to know because they don't know. if they claimed to know without evidence, that would be unscientific.

also, what exactly about the universe expanding at an increasing rate is at odds with "what we currently know"? they've been talking about this for years now, and the latest "proof" was expected by many.

 

[QUOTE they don't have any idea how it works:

Also, I have yet to see anywhere say that they can prove - based on your standards - what dark matter is.[/QUOTE]

No shit sherlock. That is why I said long ago that so many astrophysicists were upset with the decision to abandon Hubble, because that is the primary device used to explore this phenomenon.

 

That might be true if I was arguing in favor of creation only, but I am not. I am simply pointing out that Miss tery - and to some extent you as well - havea a different burden of prrof when it comes to someopne's religious theries than you do for a scientific theory.

 

Looks like you are keeping pace with me on the Chardonnay tonight.

 

i have a different burden of proof depending upon what the claim is and how it's made. for example, i don't require a ton of evidence to support somebody's description of the big bang theory. why? because i know it's just a theory. you know it's just a theory. the person speaking knows it's just a theory and will probably say so a few times in describing it. they might even point out where it fails or that some people believe a different version.

i don't know anybody that calls creationism "a theory". it's a belief. theories are open to debate and often later disproven by new theories. the big bang theory does a good job of answering a lot of questions, but it's far from complete (tho it's not really supposed to answer every question out there, really). i know this and accept it. when a better theory is put forward, i'm sure it'll all make a bit more sense, but even that one will be incomplete.

i seriously doubt anybody that believes in creationism in specific or god in general is open to the idea of being wrong, that tomorrow something might be learned that would change everything for them.

 

Informative, as always.

 

True, but a belief doesn't have to be literal IMO.

I believe wholeheartedly that God created the universe. Nothing else I've seen makes anywhere near as much sense. Did He do it in 6 days? I think it's possible, but not necessarily factual. Could have been 6 time periods spanning thousands, even millions of years. I have no idea. But I'm not staying up nights wondering about it, either.

 

Good point. This is the only way I'm able to accept the bible. Everything is more symbolic than absolute.