Trying to "bring down" a scientific pursuit to being on the same level as faith, is only insulting faith, itself. The whole "see, you guys are using faith too" argument makes faith look bad. As a christian I ask you to stop that.
When the galaxy rotations did not fit the evolutionary model, instead of questioning the evolutionary model (dogma must not be challenged), "Dark Matter" was invented to explain away the problem.
There is no "evolutionary model" that acts as dogma to cosmologists who theorize about dark matter. Why do you think there is?
The fact that dark matter was invented is a challange to the previous theory that didn't include it, so what we're seeing is revision as opposed to clutching onto dogma.
So now, some posters to this thread are not even sure DM is matter after all, but they are absolutely certain it exists, whatever it is
Enormous amounts of matter are having to be held together through gravitational frorces from something... It turns out that we cannot directly see it.
If you type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] then it will become
quotes are easy
Not at all. I do not denegrate faith in God one bit.
When you make it as an insult in that "science is faith too", as if you're bringing science down to a lower level, then you have denigrated faith.
I claim that much of what passes for "objective science" is really a faith in naturalism.
But that's not how faith works. If you make an assuption of naturalism and then follow the evidence where it leads, you're not employing faith unless your assumption is shown to be wrong and then you hold it regardless.
That is not denegration, that is simply categorization.
But you're implying that faith is the lower category that you're bringing science down in to.
Actually, the ancient age of the universe is the dogma being clutched to.
Except that its not. The ancient age of the universe is a conclusion that was arrived at despite that people thought that it wasn't that old.
There is little differential speed observed in the arms of spiral galaxies, a fact that would be impossible if the universe was 20-30 billions of years old.
The "answer" is that there must be a "sphere" of matter around the plane of the visible arms to account for the observed rotation. This matter must be "dark matter" to explain why we cannot see it. (Of course, there is no explaination why all the bright matter settled in one plane.)
quote:The first person to provide evidence and infer the presence of dark matter was Swiss astrophysicist Fritz Zwicky, of the California Institute of Technology in 1933. He applied the virial theorem to the Coma cluster of galaxies and obtained evidence of unseen mass. Zwicky estimated the cluster's total mass based on the motions of galaxies near its edge and compared that estimate to one based on the number of galaxies and total brightness of the cluster. He found that there was about 400 times more estimated mass than was visually observable. The gravity of the visible galaxies in the cluster would be far too small for such fast orbits, so something extra was required. This is known as the "missing mass problem". Based on these conclusions, Zwicky inferred that there must be some non-visible form of matter which would provide enough of the mass and gravity to hold the cluster together.source
What is your basis for saying this? What exists in the observed universe that requires dark matter? The only "evidence" is the speed of rotation in spiral galaxies, and that requires the assumption of an old universe.
No, see above.
If you can entertain for one second the possibility of a young universe, then the rotational speed of spiral arms offers no puzzle at all, and is even consistent with the hypothesis.