(September 11, 2014 at 9:59 pm)Surgenator Wrote:(September 11, 2014 at 9:44 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: I was simply making the point that both seem to be lacking, which it seems others agree with. No argument there.The amount of evidence lacking for the God theory is significantly larger than the Big Bang theory. That is what everyone is trying to point out.
Quote:Simple, when does it need to be included as part of your theory to explain the results. I don't need DM to explain how you get quantum entanglement works or to make accurate predictions.
I guess that's my point, with such a limited understanding of "dark matter" and "dark energy", how does one conclude that it's not relevant?
Quote:If it's 96% of our reality, how can one be sure it does not influence those things that we are trying to learn about? How do you know it's not an important variable?If I can explain the results without using it, then its influence is negligible.
"Results" in science imply correlation, not causation. Often causation is assumed with these results which is not accurate unless all other variables are controlled for. Unknown variables could very well be involved with causation of our perceived correlations. We cannot know for sure.
