The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old

[Alex K]

Why I haz so much purrden of proof, while U can claim whatevers you want? Oh what the hellz, I'll write the leading arguments up shortly.

As far as creation cosmologies go, they by definition are worthless because God can predict everything and nothing.

So, the most important reasons why the scientific consensus says "there is a substance called Dark Matter", are:

• It explains rotation curves of galaxies nicely
  
• Together with vacuum energy, it produces a perfect match with the CMB power spectrum. No other known hypothesis does this.
  
• Fits to the first maximum of the CMB power spectrum and supernova data yield an excess in matter over the observed baryonic matter content of the universe
  
• We can observe the gravitational effects of dark matter via gravitational lensing, and observations like the Bullet cluster show that this cannot be taken care of by (only) modifying the laws of gravity
  
• Simulations of structure formation in the early universe using the dark matter hypothesis produce realistic late time structure
  

Note, the cold/warmish dark matter hypothesis explains all of these, and the second point should really count as a few dozen observations, since we are not only reproducing a number, but a highly nontrivial spectral curve. As a theoretical aside - dark matter is not a complicated or far out hypothesis at all. We already know three particle species which contribute to dark matter, and all one needs is one new type of particle not much unlike the ones we already know, with slightly higher mass (depending on how it's produced in the BB). It's really uncontroversial.

[downbeatplumb]

Alternative theories to Dark matter.

Enjoy.

http://www.livescience.com/19796-dark-ma...tives.html

[Alex K]

Alternative theories to Dark matter.

Enjoy.

http://www.livescience.com/19796-dark-ma...tives.html

Nothing really new there, the known alternative approaches like MOND only ever work for parts of the observations.

[Statler Waldorf]

[quote='Alex K' pid='607779' dateline='1393053574']
As far as creation cosmologies go, they by definition are worthless because God can predict everything and nothing.

By definition? What definition? Which cosmologies are you referring to? I’ll need an actual name.

So, the most important reasons why the scientific consensus says "there is a substance called Dark Matter", are:

Scientific facts are not established by consensus opinion. Even though no such consensus even exists concerning dark matter.

It explains rotation curves of galaxies nicely

This in no way means it actually exists; especially considering that fact that such rotations can be explained without using dark matter. The discrepancy is more likely due to a weakness in the cosmological model than the existence of some magic particle.

Together with vacuum energy, it produces a perfect match with the CMB power spectrum. No other known hypothesis does this.

Same as above. Needing something to exist in order to save a cosmological model is not evidence that something indeed exists. Where’s the actual evidence?

Fits to the first maximum of the CMB power spectrum and supernova data yield an excess in matter over the observed baryonic matter content of the universe

I disagree. The most recent Boomerang data collected containing the amplitudes in the angular power spectrum of the anisotropies in the CMB radiation suggests that the universe contains mostly baryonic matter and not dark matter.

We can observe the gravitational effects of dark matter via gravitational lensing, and observations like the Bullet cluster show that this cannot be taken care of by (only) modifying the laws of gravity

Yes, and they could “observe” the gravitational effects that dark matter had on Mercury’s orbit prior to General Relativity. Of course this was actually due to a weakness in Newtonian Physics and not due to the actual existence of any exotic matter. The notion of such matter is entirely unscientific. This is what happens when people marry themselves to a scientific paradigm with such religious devotion, they begin to postulate ad hoc rescue mechanisms in order to save the paradigm rather than participating in proper scientific inquiry.

Simulations of structure formation in the early universe using the dark matter hypothesis produce realistic late time structure

Simulations cannot be used as evidence to support the existence of something otherwise empirically undetectable.

Note, the cold/warmish dark matter hypothesis explains all of these, and the second point should really count as a few dozen observations, since we are not only reproducing a number, but a highly nontrivial spectral curve. As a theoretical aside - dark matter is not a complicated or far out hypothesis at all. We already know three particle species which contribute to dark matter, and all one needs is one new type of particle not much unlike the ones we already know, with slightly higher mass (depending on how it's produced in the BB). It's really uncontroversial.

Whether or not something is controversial is irrelevant. How do you know it’s a particle? Why not fairies? Unicorns? Perhaps magic gnomes? Angels? Magic balloons? A genie? Simply postulating a new particle in no way makes it anymore scientific than anything I listed above.

Try applying this to your own delusions.

So believing in dark matter is a delusion?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

So believing in dark matter is a delusion?

If dark matter exists there should be some in our own solar system. Since no one has any evidence of such a thing it's comparable to the celestial deity that billions of people worship. It's imaginary.

[Alex K]

I disagree. The most recent Boomerang data collected containing the amplitudes in the angular power spectrum of the anisotropies in the CMB radiation suggests that the universe contains mostly baryonic matter and not dark matter.

While it was marginally possible to fit no-dark matter models to CMB data years ago, with current data, this is not possible.

[JuliaL]

---

Among lots of other drivel,(tl;dr)
Happens all the time. Technology has moved past the bronze age.

per google's dictionary
vir•gin
ˈvərjən/
noun
noun: virgin; plural noun: virgins
1.
a person, typically a woman, who has never had sexual intercourse.

Also from google's dictionary
ar•ti•fi•cial in•sem•i•na•tion
noun
1.
the injection of semen into the vagina or uterus other than by sexual intercourse.

Most of the milk supplied in American markets comes from virgin cows who have calved and freshened without intercourse.
Virgin birth isn't so hard to replicate [b]these days. I am interested in the semantic gymnastics you have to offer to explain how this simple and obvious fact is somehow in error. I don't expect it to change your arbitrary, axiomatic presuppositions.
Maybe no woman has ever been artificially inseminated without having somehow first been fucked?

---

1. This is irrelevant because Old-Earth Christians believe the virgin birth was a result of the immaculate conception- which is a supernatural event and not some means of artificial insemination.
2. Are you really going to argue that 1st Century Jews had late 19th Century technology? Really? If not, then this was irrelevant for a second reason.

I'll take "moving the goalposts" for 500.
My comment was in response to your question:

Really? What evidence is there that a virgin can give birth?

Why did you ask that question if you weren't suggesting that virgin birth could not be easily explained.
If you had intended to ask, "What evidence is there of a magical impregnation," you could, and perhaps should, have done so.
With respect to your second claim of irrelevance; What difference does it make what technologies were available to first century Jews? Some event was reported as miraculous which clearly could have had several simpler explanations.
You still get full marks for the mental gymnastics necessary to retain the mystical when the mundane would suffice.



ME!

[Alex K]

You win a NIZE HAT!!!

---

1. This is irrelevant because Old-Earth Christians believe the virgin birth was a result of the immaculate conception- which is a supernatural event and not some means of artificial insemination.
2. Are you really going to argue that 1st Century Jews had late 19th Century technology? Really? If not, then this was irrelevant for a second reason.

I'll take "moving the goalposts" for 500.
My comment was in response to your question:

Really? What evidence is there that a virgin can give birth?

Why did you ask that question if you weren't suggesting that virgin birth could not be easily explained.
If you had intended to ask, "What evidence is there of a magical impregnation," you could, and perhaps should, have done so.
With respect to your second claim of irrelevance; What difference does it make what technologies were available to first century Jews? Some event was reported as miraculous which clearly could have had several simpler explanations.
You still get full marks for the mental gymnastics necessary to retain the mystical when the mundane would suffice.



ME!

---

[JuliaL]

You win a NIZE HAT!!!

He tink ve schtupid!

I'm SCHMOTT GUY! GILGEMESH WULFENBACH

[snowtracks]

the yec'ers don't harmonize scripture with astronomy. the bible tell us (yes, atheists are included) the law of physics don't change. astronomical observations of galaxies, starlight have remained constant since the creation event. astronomy looks back into the past and observed objects that completely align their physical condition with their age as defined by distance going all the way to the background radiation some 13 billion years ago.