Dark matter a dying theory?

The point of the quibble, is that you thought everybody had a wrong understanding of the term dark matter (you stated this multiple times) and that this is what was making the discussion between tesla and Taq difficult. The point is that you were wrong, and that the term was correctly understood as including only solutions that posited some form of matter as an explanation. No, I am right because this is how the term is universally understood in and out of the scientific community.And I never claimed alternative ideas were ruled out, just that this was an example of the power of a paradigm.

I'm just saying that the concepts of hypothesis and eduacted guess seem to be no different except from the fact hypothesis is used when relating to science. And in that case saying a hypothesis is an educated guess is acceptable IMO. You did notice I used the past tense right ? I said it WAS and educated guess.SO yes, it does mean you WERE a baby.

http://www.desy.de/...Physics/Relativity/GR/dark_matter.htmlExplains it pretty well in layman terms. The age of the universe comes directly from the Big Bang model. Any evidence against the theoretical age derived from a BB model is evidence against this BB model Except that they never made the argument that the speed of the galaxies was evidence the earth was young. Even some creationist cosmologies have galaxies living millions of years in their reference frame so if they ever used that argument, it would sort of backfire.The closest I can think of is the argument (not often used, mind you) that the galaxies must be young because the arms would have spiraled much more then they have. But that's not what we're talking about here What I think is bad debate is the fact that you did not refute it, you simply asserted that they used it (the see-what-you-wanna-see phenomenon) as an excuse for being hypocrites without any basis.There was nothing negative about what I said about evolutionists when they approach the evidence. I did not insinuate anything, I directly stated that this phenomenon applied to equally to everyone, including evolutionists and creationists. Except that the only person who insinuated anything was you: you insinuated that the only reason creationists were more verbal about this phenomenon was so that they could use it as an excuse for being hypocrites.Avoid any form of misrepresentation is a forum guideline

The article points out that to produce the universe we observe, the Big Bang would have to produce a certain amount of matter. Since visible Baryonic matter only represents a small percentage of that amount, it is assumed the discrepency is solved by dark matter.But if dark matter turns out not to exist, or not in such a large quantity, then the current Big Bang model would be falsified and require significant revision. You are misrepresenting their intentions, it has nothing to do with what ''suits them'' or doesn't. This is what I said:

quote:

---

This phenomenon applies to everyone, there are no exceptions. And it does not apply more or less to creationists. The only difference, is that it seems to be that creationists at least are more aware of it.

---

I clearly stated that it does not apply less to creationists. In other words, I would certainly expect examples where this has been the case from creationist. Obviously, if I acknowledged from the unset that it applied to creationist just as well, this cannot be the source of me being upset (in any case, it was more of a general rant then anything specific to this one discussion)

I did read your message, but it does not contain the answer to this specific quesiton, simply because it contains an example of an educated guess (predicting where your wife will be) and a fact (looking on the gps), but it failed to highlight the supposed substantial distinction between eduacted guess and hypothesis. I used that example for the purpose of simplicity: putting a pot on the stove is frequently used example to represent ''the Scientific Experiment''. I repeated many times that saying a hypothesis is an educated guess isn't a negative thing, so I am not tryign to denigrate anything.But the truth is, when faced with an unknown phenomenon in his lab, the scientist will use his knowledge to propose a tentative explanation for the phenomenon. There is nothing wrong with calling this an educated guess, even though in science it is referred to as a hypothesis.In no way am I saying this just to say ''scientists are just guessing''. And the best way to do this, is to use the terms in the way they are defined by the dictionnary. This is much more efficient then both having the same, but wrong, definitions.This is exactly what happened with the 'dark matter' quibble. You defined it in such a way that it included modified laws of physics and effects of extra dimensions, when it clearly was not how it was defined by anyone else, especially in the scientific community. When I pointed out that you were wrong to defined it in such a misleading way, you responded to me with ''if you like'', instead of simply saying ''Ok I was wrong''.