Disturbing Developments In Cosmology

Dark matter has always been a controversial subject in this blog, often times it’s refer to as a factual phenomena due to consensus in order to fill in a problem concerning secular cosmology. For years scientists have been looking for it with a vast amount of expensive research tools. With such very weak inferences, and then trying to make predictions (from the “cosmological standard model”) with something that hasn’t been discovered directly which makes it invalid for it to be considered as factual but rather it’s mere speculation.

CDM particles is something different than physics describing the atomic nucleus with specific concepts governing matter and energy. Then coming up with new particles that are defined very tightly constrained like quarks when previous data cannot explain observed phenomena. As creationists, we agree that particles of this nature do not behave arbitrarily because they were created by a God of order.

Observational data is becoming a problem for the gap filling model of dark matter. At the science festival in England, leading cosmologist Carlos Frenk and the BBC says that “research on dwarf galaxies suggests they cannot form in the way they do if dark matter exists in the form that the most common model requires it to.” CDM particles haven’t been proven despite what some would say. More disurbing developments in cosmology in relation to a possiblity, “that CDM does not exist, and the predictions of the standard model relating to it are false.” 

But the disturbing developments with observational data and the computer model, Frenk insists this is not a dead thing and no shift is required but rather he makes a bold prediction of his own, “Dark matter is poised for big developments in the next few months,” he said. Sorry Frenk, it’s highly unlikely that such results will come in a few short months that vindicates the model of dark matter. More like increasing complexity will begin to plague it even more because it is not matching up with observational data whether it be soon or later.

18 thoughts on “Disturbing Developments In Cosmology

  1. Michael: “Dark matter has always been a controversial subject in this blog, …”

    Eh, no. Not really. You’ve mostly shown that you don’t know much about the subject.

  2. @Michael,

    A long time ago, I linked you a site that explained how dark matter was detected. You, obviously, ignored me. All you have to do is watch the science channel, and they explain how it is detected.—The fact that you do not look it up yourself despite the fact that you have been provided the resources to read up on it shows you are not even interested in an answer.

  3. Eelco,

    Where [sic] you the one who said dark matter was directly detected? How much Eelco do you really know about invisible matter?


    Michael, who apparently has no qualifications in any field of science[1] presumes to question the knowledge of a professional astronomer who works in the area. Now THAT is the definition of chutzpah!


    The larger issue here is that Michael is a prisoner of his definitions. He believes that terms given to phenomena determine the nature of those phenomena. Is Au. sediba “human” or “ape”?[2] If it’s human, it must be fully human in every respect; if not Michael requires that it be fully ape, no human characteristics allowed, no interbreeding.[3] Nothing.

    In this post, Michael denies that dark matter has been “directly observed.” By this term, he means that he can’t SEE it.[4] Yet, by this standard, gravity cannot be directly observed either. We detect gravity only by the effect it produces upon mass. It generates no light, it absorbs no light. The strong nuclear force is even less directly observable. We sense it only through its attraction of nucleons and quarks. And no one has ever successfully ripped individual quarks apart. We know it only through the effects it produces on other bodies.

    Just like dark matter. We observe dark matter by its effect on other masses. Yes, Michael retorts, but we don’t know what dark matter IS. And if we don’t know what something IS then we can’t define it, and it doesn’t exist. Yet physicists knew there were such things as electrons years before they knew what they are. People knew about mountains millenia before geologist figured out their composition. .

    Michael is truly a thrall of his terminology. He believes that definitions of the world proceed from dictionary entries created by man.. News flash, Michael. The thing defines the word, not vice versa. Just one more reason to laugh at creationists.


    [1] We have beenpestering him for two years to provide his readers with his background or other qualifications in the field he pontificates on. But so far, all he has told us is that he once looked through a microscope when he was a kid.

    [2] Because of his absolute need for certainty, the category “unknown”is not allowed. This is actually the entire basis o for the creationist drivel that there are no intermediate fossils: They insist that any fossil be assigned to one species or another, regardless of ambiguity in the evidence. But, once they have forced an answer, they say, “Aha! Then it can’t be transitional, can bit?” The logical flaw here is evident to all except creationists, whose facility for critical thinking seems to have been surgically removed.

    [3] Again, because Michael denies species as being incapable of interbreeding. Such as horses and mules, horses and zebras, tigers and lions, leopards and lions, camels and llamas, cows and buffalo, bottle-nosed dolphins and false killer whales—and the occasional sheep and goat. As Dickie Smothers used to say, “If it don’t fit, force it.”

    [4] Actually, this is another of Michael’s bondages to the words he uses: Why would they CALL it dark matter if you could see it? Ipso facto, ergo est.

  4. . . . . . . . . . . Disturbing Developments In Cosmology

    Yes, but disturbing only to creationists.

    All of creationism is nothing more than an increasingly Sisyphean effort to deny scientific results. They themselves never advance their knowledge of special creation. Nor can they..

  5. Michael, I’ve explained you MANY TIMES in the past how dark matter is detected, even showing my own (published) research with the Hubble Space Telescope, where we produced a very nice map of the dark matter distribution around a pair of rich galaxy clusters.

    You’ve completely ignored all that. So I have to agree that you simply do not want to know. You don’t even care.

    Oh, and I know a lot about ‘invisible matter’ (aka ‘dark’ matter). You don’t want to know.

  6. Eelco, nothing seems to break through the fog. Have you ever been in a dense fog bank at sea? The featureless grayness swallows up light and sound without a trace. You can’t see anything, everything is quiet. The entire rest of the world seems far away. This is where Michael lives..

    All we know is that, if Michael allows his kids to go off to college some day, they will become atheists,.

  7. Kriss,

    Is the BBC report lying when it says, “The existence of the particles has not yet been proven, as they are extremely difficult to detect – they cannot be “seen” in the traditional sense.” This is what I’m referring to, I am not sure what you are referring to, where is your proof that particles of dark matter which is a direct observation of the phenomena has been detected? Saying that gravity cannot account for what is happening in the universe is not a direct observational discovery. In fact, without direct evidence, saying that gravity cannot account for what is happening in the universe doesn’t mean it’s dark matter, it could be something else. Whether or not dark matter exists doesn’t affect creationism in any way but the belief and your debate about the existence of dark matter is flawed.

  8. blockquote>
    In fact, without direct evidence, saying that gravity cannot account for what is happening in the universe doesn’t mean it’s dark matter, it could be something else.

    So, OK. It could be gray matter, or brindled matter, or hot chicken soup. But it is there, and is affected by gravity. That we have not yet characterized it in terms of particles or fields is immaterial.

    Michael is again being held prisoner by the words he uses.

    Whether or not dark matter exists doesn’t affect creationism in any way….

    Now I’m beginning to feel like Eelco. Dark matter affects creationism because its absence could be evidence of a young galaxy. Michael not only ignores us, he doesn’t even absorb what other creationists write. Total imperiousness.

  9. @Michael,

    The BBC is NOT a scientific organization! It’s a news network, not a peer-reviewed research institute!

    And even your own quote shows poor reading comprehension. your own quote says it cannot be seen in the “TRADITIONAL” way. Hey, wait!! I never said it could be seen in the “traditional way.” Besides, this is only one “news report,” and this by itself cannot debunk the mountains of research that has confirmed the existence of dark matter. You need much, MUCH more than one report.

  10. And Michael,

    If, as you claim, the existence of dark matter does not affect creationism….then what’s the point of crying foul over it?

  11. The latest issue of Scientific American features an article on Dark Matter: Blitz, “The dark Side of the Milky Way” (Sci Am, Oct. 2011, pp36-45.

    Dark matter explains an otherwise mysterious warp in the plane of the Milky Way.

    An interesting sidelight is the use of dark-matter concentrations to search for very faint normal-mass satellites that have heretofore been missing.

  12. In more than a week, Michael has not been able to find a news item in all of astronomy or biology that he can misinterpret, twist, or distort into a creationist viewpoint. This is out of a field of hundreds of journal papers and and magazine articles during that period.

    But then there is the larger question. The blog title is “New Discoveries and Comments about Creationism.” Now, in the last several years of this blog, Michael has not written a single post concerning a “new discovery” that might provide positive evidence for creationism. He focuses entirely upon supposed flaws in current scientific theories. But never anything that might possibly establish the truth of creationism.

    We suspect that there is no such evidence.

  13. Now, for something that makes better sense than anything Michael has ever written on his blog….

    This weekend, I called into a radio program about Conrad Murray (Michael Jackson’s doctor). — The discussion was with an a professor of astronomy who argues in favor of Murray… He says “I’m a doctor (though not a medical doctor), so I know more about this than any of you listening.” Yeah, sounds like a prank call…but it was still funny.

    I got my call answered at the 67:10 point in the podcast..

    Link: http://www.kfiam640.com/player/?station=KFI-AM&program_name=podcast&program_id=PhilHendrie.xml&mid=21456090

  14. Olorin,

    You say, “Michael has not written a single post concerning a “new discovery” that might provide positive evidence for creationism.” Oh yes I have, numerous times especially when it about the global flood and the age of the earth or universe. Theories are flawed, it depends upon how the flaws are being used. Take a look at Mercury latest discoveries. In six months, it has falsified theorists, the textbooks are wrong. This is why operational science is vastly superior than historical or speculation. There are no creationists who are against operational science in fact this is when science increases knowledge. You haven’t proven evolution.

  15. Sorry Michael, but Olorin is completely right here. You have written no such post (i.e. one providing positive evidence for creationist ideas).

  16. Michael thinks that problems in current scientific theory is inherently support for his own position. Sorry, Michael, that is a logical fallacy known as a “False Dichotomy.” Even if current theory is incorrect, it doesn’t mean your position is correct.

  17. Kris, Michael still does not even understand what our objection is, much less answered it.

    Michael, in general terms, it’s called the False Dichotomy logic fallacy; That no amount of evidence against Theory A can constitute positive evidence for Theory Z..

    This is not the first—nor even the tenth—time you have heard this. There is a point at which willful ignorance is indistinguishable from stupidity..

    Don’t you ever wonder why people laugh?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s