beecee

My post was not in relation to any logical fallacies. It was your misinterpretation of Dawkins. You said..... I replied...... The theory of evolution is accepted mainstream theory of the evolution of life. And near certain. In fact there is nothing scientifically alternative to it.

All resorts are not local habitats and farm land. The resorts are built over the water for obvious reasons...Tourists. That does not reflect the local living regions, and nor do the resorts exist on the smaller Islands, and are mainly on the main or big Islands. So really, you need to stop talking nonsense. Ever heard of an Island in French Polynesia called Manihi Atoll? or Niue? or Kiribati in Micronesia? https://www.newscientist.com/article/2146594-eight-low-lying-pacific-islands-swallowed-whole-by-rising-seas/

Such nonsensical claims. Australia in parts is still under drought conditions and has been for two years. And obviously your silly photo of a tourist resort is childish at best. I would tell you to phone a friend, but another from your congregation posting, would be even more sillier. Wrong. Excellent post Ken, and more importantly, excellent science.

Not really Reg. Forgetting the philosophical grandstanding, and your "true or false" edict, and speaking scientifically, the theory of the evolution of life is as near certain as anyone can claim based on the science and data and knowledge gained. What is debatable and perhaps not properly detailed is the finer details and such. Again, if anyone dares claim evolution as false [looking at the large picture] then he or she has a tremendous amount of explaining to do. Again as I have informed you many times, even the Catholic church, being aware of the observational data and knowledge that exists to support the theory of evolution, has finally agreed that it sees no conflict with the creation myth and evolution, as well as the BB, and simply installed their version of "the god of the gaps" to cover the regions that science is devoid of knowledge of. A shifty way out of their obvious predicament.

As most reasonable scientists would say, and I'm pretty sure the same view is held by Dawkins, is that the theory of the evolution of life is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence and therefor the accepted explanation by scientists. And of course being the only real scientific answer based on those observations. Abiogenesis also fits the same bill, as the only scientific answer available with the proviso of Panspermia. The point is that the theory of evolution is as close to certain as any scientific theory can be...Even this Elliot Sober being a critic of ID must agree with that. Thanks Reg, finally something positive from you.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_Sober#Academic_career "Sober has been a prominent critic of intelligent design.[14][15][16] He also has written about evidence and probability,[17] scientific realism and instrumentalism,[18] laws of nature,[19] the mind-body problem[20]and naturalism.[21]" Scientific realism of course is the opinion that the universe as detailed and described by science and the observational evidenced entailed, is real regardless of how it may be interpreted.

Crackpots? I mean really! Ask the "crackpots" that have their homes on Pacific Islands of low lying atolls and reefs etc, if a foot rise is within norms. Climate change is happening and has happened in the past...The argument the real crackpots like to ignore and forget, is how humanity is adding to the progression of climate change. And even considering the possibility that scientists may be wrong, with the fate of many people's and countries at stake, I believe erring on the side of caution is the logical way to go. [And no, at this stage I do not believe they are wrong]

Through the application of knowledge, mathematics and observation. I'm not a mathematician so no I'm unable to produce the maths, but more to the point, would you even understand the maths? Hawking's paradox and whether he was wrong or otherwise, has to do with what is known as the information paradox and firewall concept with regards to the EH, not on the existence of BH's themselves. The existence of BH's is now beyond any reasonable doubt, and so far 5 BH collision scenarios have been determined by LIGO and VIRGO

And it gets more and more right as our observations improve. I see no progress though in your continued obtuseness and misunderstandings. Scientific truth remains as determined by observation under the auspices of the scientific method. Nonsense. The observations of Jupiter and its moons showled that everything does not revolve around the Earth and lead to the heliocentric model. It is scientifically adequate and correct when used in its zone of applicability, as per all scientific models including GR. I'm really not interested in your philosophical clap trap. My claims stand and are generally accepted by scientists. I'm pretending nothing other then your inadequate attempted use of philosophy to attempt to invalidate science, the scientific methodology, and progressive scientific truth. Keep trying. If you chose to ignore history and logic in favour of your hairy fairy philosophical learning, then I certainly understand why Krauss and Hawking took your nonsense to task....Note carefully, I don't denigrate all philosophy'just that as preached by yourself and another on this forum and the fact that even you two cannot agree.... "Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself". :Henry Louis Mencken Actually again you fail to see. Science itself shows its own errors when relevant and is self correcting. Not interested in discussing any non scientific myth though. let's actually start where you are again wrong. Plenty of experiments starting with Focaults pendulum. I suggest you now start to stop trying to defend your silly philosophical stance against the practical application of science and the scientific method. So? I'm not prejudiced against any religious person, despite your own prejudices against the scientific discipline for having disposed of ID as unnecessary, and superfluous. Not sure why you find that an issue really. Oh for Christ's sake stop being so silly and pedantic. You know exactly what I'm inferring and mean and what I said. Is obtuseness a staple requirement of philosophy? Again science has been practised for eons, despite not being called scientists or philosophers. I suggest at this time, along with your other obvious agendas, that you look up the definition of science. Yeah sure, and as I have already said, that also is the general view held by many who chose mystical, mythical beliefs over science, the scientific method and the knowledge that goes with it. The scientific methodology is the most logical system available and I doubt if it will ever be improved upon. It's available and observed everyday at every opportunity for anyone that is not blinded by some agenda. I don't intend to pander to your nonsensical question in that regard. To the contrary I'm absolutely right and as I explained in detail.

Most all physicists have this information on BH's and what it entails for their formation...If I had to list some who originally worked out the intricate details and maths, we have Schwarzchild...Chandreskar, Bethe, Kerr, Hawking, Penrose, Thorne, for starters. In actual fact BH's of sorts, were first theorised to exist in the late 1700's under Newtonian mechanics by a guy called Mitchell. These though were actually what is termed as Dark Stars. BH's are now confirmed with the discovery of gravitational waves, and of course the evidence that has been available for at least 50 years, the observational action of matter etc, that can only be put down to some entity that has exceeded its Schwarzchild radius...aka a BH.

https://phys.org/news/2018-11-dark-hurricane-chance-axions.html A team of researchers from Universidad de Zaragoza, King's College London and the Institute of Astronomy in the U.K. has found that a "dark matter hurricane" passing through our solar system offers a better than usual chance of detecting axions. In their paper published in the journal Physical Review D, the group describes their findings and why they believe their observations could offer help in understanding dark matter. The evidence for the existence of dark matter is very strong, yet scientists are still unable to find a way to actually "see" it. Because of that, they keep trying to find new ways to do so. In this new effort, the researchers have been studying the S1 stream—a collection of stars moving in a way that suggests they were once part of a dwarf galaxy that was consumed by the Milky Way. The S1 stream was discovered last year by a team studying data from the Gaia satellite. Other such streams have been observed before, but this is the first to cross paths with our own solar system. In this new effort, the researchers have studied the possible impact of S1 as it passed through our region, because it offers a unique opportunity to study dark matter. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-11-dark-hurricane-chance-axions.html#jCp the paper: https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.103006 Dark matter hurricane: Measuring the S1 stream with dark matter detectors: ABSTRACT The recently discovered S1 stream passes through the Solar neighborhood on a low inclination, counterrotating orbit. The progenitor of S1 is a dwarf galaxy with a total mass comparable to the present-day Fornax dwarf spheroidal, so the stream is expected to have a significant DM component. We compute the effects of the S1 stream on WIMP and axion detectors as a function of the density of its unmeasured dark component. In WIMP detectors the S1 stream supplies more high energy nuclear recoils so will marginally improve DM detection prospects. We find that even if S1 comprises less than 10% of the local density, multiton xenon WIMP detectors can distinguish the S1 stream from the bulk halo in the relatively narrow mass range between 5 and 25 GeV. In directional WIMP detectors such as CYGNUS, S1 increases DM detection prospects more substantially since it enhances the anisotropy of the WIMP signal. Finally, we show that axion haloscopes possess by far the greatest potential sensitivity to the S1 stream if its dark matter component is sufficiently cold. Once the axion mass has been discovered, the distinctive velocity distribution of S1 can easily be extracted from the axion power spectrum.

My argument is simply that science, the scientific method and scientific truth, progress as new observations and data dictate. We still accept the discoveries of Galileo through his observations of Jupiter and its moons, that the Earth centred view of the solar system is wrong...We exclusively use Newtonian mechanics every day of our lives here on Earth and still for near all space endeavours because they give the right answers with sufficient accuracies, despite SR and GR. And again your rather childish obtuseness raises its ugly head. But hey! I have plenty of time to correct your nonsense. Science constructs theories and models under the auspices of the scientific method, based on observation and experiment, and validated predictions. Any so called truth if it at all exists, is not necessarily the goal, and of course often is used by those critical of science to mean some imaginary scientifically unsupported deity or ID of some sort...which we all know is unscientific as well of course as unevidenced, unnecessary, and superfluous. I believe we have revealed your agenda! Let me repeat, as your continued prancing and agenda is rather tiresome...It is scientifically true despite your misgivings and general philosophically prancing around the fact that this is why science, and the knowledge that goes with it, will always prevail, and improve and is its overwhelming advantage over myth and philosophical questions that may never be answered. Particularly relevant is the highlighted part. Science works because it is not incalcitrant and based on myth or fear driven nonsense, rather observation and knowledge at anyone time, and of course logically as a scientific theory or model stands up to scrutiny, continues to align with new and further observations, and continues making predictions, it certainly does grow in certainty over time, as per examples previously given...unless of course you have discovered something that invalidates some incumbent model? Then you know what to do, don't you. Yes lets. Galileo practised science...astronomy to be exact, and even constructed his own telescope after a discovery by another named Hans Lippershey. We all practise science and always have to some degree or other. That's why the scientific method is so widely used and accepted as the best we have. The father of the BB model of the evolution of the universe/spacetime was a Catholic Jesuit priest....So? Yep, so? Galileo, Brahe [not Brae ] and Copernicus all had evidence and all had a hand in showing that the Sun was the centre of the universe [which of course we know today is wrong and that it is actually the centre of the solar system. You are correct though that actual evidence that the earth rotates and orbits was not found until much later, but of course the three mentioned as well as another even more ancient astronomer did have legitimate thoughts re the Earth's movements. Obviously all practised science despite some errors that we know of today. I take it on experience and the logic of the scientific method despite your crusade against those terrible Atheists. Why would we use religious myth to construct or formulate scientific truth? I of course agree though that some very important philosophical postulates and valid thoughts are at the foundation of the scientific method, but again as Professor Krauss has alluded to, perhaps philosophy has had its day. A nonsensical analogy at best....Again [ho hum] science, scientific theories, and the knowledge and data that evolves with them, are not nor ever will be fixed and absolute. Science is in the business of progression and advancement, based on observation, and experiment under the auspices of the scientific methodology..Theories maybe scrapped, modified, or added to...that's science and the scientific method...theories also grow in certainty over time, as they continue to be successful. Who in their right mind and without some agenda, can logically doubt the certainty of the evolution of life. That doesn't mean that more knowledge and more scientific truth cannot be added to Darwin's great theory and revelation. ps: You need not remind me that Darwin was also a religious man. The question was answered, though the problem may be that it was not the answer aligning with what you wanted to hear. The way I understand the argument from authority fallacy, is someone say asking a professor of medicine, about some aspect of relativity. Certainly it is 100% acceptable for anyone to say ask Professor Einstein, or another Professor of physics versed and educated in SR/GR about that very subject. Most of the quotes I believe are from gentleman that are philosophers, although I am not sure and really at this time too lazy to check out.... You have a good day.

How far do you believe I would get if I walked into a Catholic church for example, exclaiming so all could hear, that the deity they are adoring is nothing more than mythical nonsense, for gullible and impressionable sheep.

Of course not, because you cannot show me what I asked of you. No, I called you a fraud for having an agenda and inferring far more with regards to Einstein then him simply being wrong on one aspect of his theory of GR, which every man and his dog knows about, but irrespective is still used today and still being validated and having predictions verified. Next....

I'll play your little futile game for the time being. Please show me where I or anyone else on this forum has ever claimed or said Einstein never made a mistake? Einstein's equations in GR did say the universe was dynamic, but Einstein did not believe this. Later observational evidence showed that the universe was expanding. It is common knowledge that Einstein immediatley exclaimed this as the greatest blunder in his career. Nothing new, nothing sinister. But of course the points that you insidiously ignore is that 100 years after SR and GR, Einstein's theories are still used and in fact in the case of GR, has finally had one of its last predictions verified in recent times.

No you are a fraud, and an ignorant one to boot. Didn't you just have a thread closed based on this same crap? Go learn some science for f%$# sake! Oh and reported.

Nonsense. Observation and attention have shown us conclusively that forming models/theories based on evidence and observation, is generally successful. eg: Discovery that light follows geodesics in curved spacetime as per GR and as observed first in 1919....discovery of gravitational radiation as predicted by GR in recent times.... The universe need not conform to what you see as logic. Science can only conform to what we know at any one time. In the end as science, knowledge is gathered, the scientific truth is Science is knowledge, so on that score, congratulations...truth on the other hand, is in many cases a reference to some almighty deity up in the sky somewhere. More correctly if this supposed deep underlying truth even exists, it may in reality be unobtainable and is certainly not necessarily the prime goal of science. Scientific truth of course is that situation that holds at anyone time. Nothing to do with special pleading, just a fact of life, that science is always an ongoing situation, and depends on the scientific methodology and further and better observational data. Far better and far more honest then pleading any god of the gaps nonsense, which is unobservable, unevidenced, unscientific, and superfluous to boot. It is scientifically true despite your misgivings and general philosophically prancing around the fact that this is why science, and the knowledge that goes with it, will always prevail, and improve and is its overwhelming advantage over myth and philosophical questions that may never be answered. I'm sure most educated scientists and those interested in science on this forum do agree totally with what I have said. So your "we" should be "I" .It may interfere with whatever agenda you really have but it is accepted as correct, and all without any "jaw jutting" pretentious accusations by yourself. Again, "it's that simple. And as I continually say, any scientific theory is always open for change or modification...a beauty and necessity of science and the scientific method. But just as certain is the fact that scientific theories and models do grow in certainty over time, and as they continue to make successful predictions and continue to align with observational and other data. eg: GR, the BB, the theory of evolution, all based on science, scientific truth, and knowledge". Certainly, and due to a raw science of sorts. Science and scientific reason has probably always existed, as has the general search for knowledge that is bound hand in hand with science. Otherwise probably, you and I would still be swinging in the trees. But also just as certainly, the mythical beliefs in the supernatural and paranormal also hindered the advancement of the evolution of mankind, illustrated most vividly with the persecution of Galileo by a church dominated society. But science, scientific truth, again in the end prevailed. Even today, to some extent, and despite the enormous advancements made because of science, it is still in parts hog tied. But that's another subject. Perhaps at this stage now with two or three obviously philosophically learned members on board, I may add another notable quote..... "Do not commence your exercises in philosophy in those regions where an error can deliver you over to the executioner". ~ Georg Lichtenberg Again let me say, that with the philosophical ramblings of late, it is understandable why the likes of Professor Laurence Krauss, and the late Professor Stephen Hawking, saw the need to take a few pot shots at philosophy as it is today. Perhaps we could say philosophy has had its day? http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199228966.001.0001/acprof-9780199228966-chapter-23 Scientific truth Louis A. Girifalco DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199228966.003.0023 "Scientific truth is based on facts. Philosophy, religion, feelings, and prejudice have nothing to do with science. Only facts matter. Verified, reproducible facts are the bedrock of scientific truth. The facts are used to construct theories which describe the detailed relations among large numbers of facts and their origin from common roots. Each element of a theory corresponds to some part of nature and, in this sense, scientific theories describe nature". or if you like....https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_a_scientific_truth A scientific truth is a truth which is the object of a repeated experimental demonstration which leads to the same result. "Scientific “truth” is simply knowledge that is compiled bit by bit, in the form of theories or “models” to give us meaningful explanations of our universe, including our small chunk of living earth. Although there may be setbacks and corrections along the way, science is nonetheless responsible for the enormous material progress we have seen over the last few centuries..." "Scientific truth is a state of minimum discrepancy between theoretical prediction and observed reality. Never absolute, scientific truth improves as theories evolve and/or measurement accuracy increases to improve the correlation between prediction and observation". """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" I have no real argument against any of those. All precise answers, pretty close to the mark, without any prolonged philisophical ramblings, metaphors, similes, or analogies.

Perhaps the obvious trait with evolution of man is the desire to knowledge, scientific truth and the advancement in science to facilitate that knowledge. I mean isn't this an evolution of sorts from the days of ancient and stone age man, needing some mythical deity in mountains, rivers, the Sun, Moon etc, to proper knowledgable scientific truth and explanation that is generally achieved today? And always ready to modify and advance that knowledge when new data and observations come to light. In essence, without science and knowledge and a desire to know, we would all still be swinging in the trees.

Actually waves and particles, called the duality nature of light. Yes, I'probably reasonably sure that we have now nailed it as far as photons go anyway...but I could be wrong. The trace is the evidence that something exists. We call it an electron..that is the scientific truth, based on the scientific knowledge we have at this time.

Your ignorance in science is outstanding. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/einsteins-time-dilation-prediction-verified/ http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae433.cfm https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-evidence-for-time-dilation Wrong again...Einstein did not think or believe the universe was going to collapse. His theories suggested that the universe was dynamic and he thought it was static. He later accepted the observational evidence from Hubble that the universe was indeed dynamic but expanding.

Nonsense to your first statement. Time dilation is a fact and has been verified. Perhaps you should alleviate your scientific ignorance and check it out on the web. Or would you like me to do it for you?

My point being exactly what I said...science is based on evidence, knowledge and observation, under the auspices of the scientific method. Rather then just philosophical musings and tiresome irrelevant metaphors, similes, analogies and such. Don't be so obtuse my friend. We have observational evidence of what a photon is and does. We have nothing about the other, other then some obscure book written in an obscure age, by obscure men...a total myth in other words, with absolutely nothing to do with science, knowledge or any supposed truth. Oh, I certainly follow your argument and also your obvious agenda. It just as certainly has nothing to do with the thread title of science, knowledge and truth. Perhaps if you were more attentive you would understand that science is always progressing and adding to or changing or modifying as new observations and evidence comes to light. That is the beauty of science rather then concocting nonsense based on myth. The theory that all swans are white was based on observational data at that time. New evidence came to light and the theory was modified...that's science... that's progression based on observational knowledge and data. Again far better then concocting some mythical entity that is unobserved, unevidenced, superfluous to explain that which science will admit is unknown. Whatever No, I think logically that the theory of DM has been supported by observation and other data as was detailed. If you believe there are other explanations that invalidate this DM, then write up an appropriate paper for professional peer review. Your obtuseness is raising its ugly head again! Science proceeds on what it knows and observes. DM is the favoured model...it's that simple. And as I continually say, any scientific theory is always open for change or modification...a beauty and necessity of science and the scientific method. But just as certain is the fact that scientific theories and models do grow in certainty over time, and as they continue to make successful predictions and continue to align with observational and other data. eg: GR, the BB, the theory of evolution, all based on science, scientific truth, and knowledge. Such an absolute statement again reflects on an agenda afoot. Let me modify it for you......a hundred years from now, we may be laughing at the suggestion of DM, or alternatively we may have uncovered the true nature of DM with even more evidence and perhaps new revealing discoveries. Just as in 1918 before the first great test of GR, started a whole new view and revelation of the big wide wonderful universe we inhabit and yet this 100 year old view is even further validated today and still stands as a tribute to that great man more then a 100 years ago. But yeah, some things have changed, just as some things will change in another 100 years, and you can bet your short and curlies that science will be the reason for that change and again at the forefront of further and continued advancements.

Applying the same logic, how is a creator possible and who gave him or her this knowledge...and who gave this him or her the knowledge that gave the creator the knowledge. You see where this is heading? I believe probably one of the greatest educators of our time put it better then most....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag6fH8cU-MU Simply put, we do not know with any certainty. Isn't this the beauty of science? In that it can, does, and will admit that we do not know, rather then make an even more astonishing claim that some magical supernatural being did it. The BB isn't actually a theory on how the universe was created. It is a theory/model on the evolution of space and time from t+10-43 seconds. Before that point, we have no knowledge. After that point, the model aligns with our current knowledge. It goes roughly like this....[1] space started to expand [why we do not know] [2] In that first micro period of time the four forces were all combined into one superforce. [3] As expansion took hold and pressures and temperatures dropped, this superforce started to decouple into the four forces we are familiar with today...[4] This created phase transitions and false vacuums, and the excesses of energy went into creating our very first fundamental particles, probably quarks and electrons...[5] As temperatures and pressures continued to drop, protons and neutrons formed..[6] At around t+3 minutes the first atomic nuclei were formed...[7] Temperatures and pressures continued to drop for another 380,000 years until temperatures were such that electrons were able to couple with atomic nuclei and our first elements of hydrogen and other lighter stuff were formed. [8] Under the auspices of gravity huge conglomerations of gas clouds started to collapse until nuclear fusion began at their cores....our first stars were born. [9] These first stars were very large and had short life spans until going supernova, and creating heavier elements. [10] Supernova remnants formed more stars as gravitational collapses continued, as well as planets and such from gaseous nebula that did not undergo fusion. [11] Many billions of years later conditions were such on some of these planets, that a process called abiogenisis started. [12] On one such planet this process evolved and beings such as you and I were able then to contemplate such events. While we have no evidence of anything before the 10-43 seconds, we are able to reasonably speculate about how the universe and space and time evolved from what we are able to determine as nothing....This article speculates on that scenario https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/

https://phys.org/news/2018-11-physicists-fractal-electrons.html Physicists build fractal shape out of electrons November 12, 2018 by Utrecht University, Utrecht University Faculty of Science Electrons in bonding (left) and non-bonding (right) Sierpiński triangles; scale bar 2nm. Credit: Kempkes et al., Nature Physics, 2018 In physics, it is well-known that electrons behave very differently in three dimensions, two dimensions or one dimension. These behaviours give rise to different possibilities for technological applications and electronic systems. But what happens if electrons live in 1.58 dimensions – and what does it actually mean? Theoretical and experimental physicists at Utrecht University investigated these questions in a new study that will be published in Nature Physics on 12 November. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-11-physicists-fractal-electrons.html#jCp the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-018-0328-0 Design and characterization of electrons in a fractal geometry: Abstract: The dimensionality of an electronic quantum system is decisive for its properties. In one dimension, electrons form a Luttinger liquid, and in two dimensions, they exhibit the quantum Hall effect. However, very little is known about the behaviour of electrons in non-integer, or fractional dimensions1. Here, we show how arrays of artificial atoms can be defined by controlled positioning of CO molecules on a Cu (111) surface2,3,4, and how these sites couple to form electronic Sierpiński fractals. We characterize the electron wavefunctions at different energies with scanning tunnelling microscopy and spectroscopy, and show that they inherit the fractional dimension. Wavefunctions delocalized over the Sierpiński structure decompose into self-similar parts at higher energy, and this scale invariance can also be retrieved in reciprocal space. Our results show that electronic quantum fractals can be artificially created by atomic manipulation in a scanning tunnelling microscope. The same methodology will allow future studies to address fundamental questions about the effects of spin–orbit interactions and magnetic fields on electrons in non-integer dimensions. Moreover, the rational concept of artificial atoms can readily be transferred to planar semiconductor electronics, allowing for the exploration of electrons in a well-defined fractal geometry, including interactions and external fields.

The funny thing is that I have absolutely nothing against anyone of any religious persuasion. I have been living with one as husband and wife for 42 years, with it being both our first and only marriage. And she also has her church group around once a month doing their choir practise. It's these god botherers that see the need to conduct crusades on forums such as this that irk me.

Thank you for actually proving my point. I don't think much more needs to be said about that ironic statement. That's why one is science and knowledge based on evidence, while the other is essentially unsupported drivel and myth. You can't see the difference? What can one say to that apparent nonsensical conclusion, except resurrect that great quote, "There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it". Cicero, Marcus Tullius (106-43 BCE) Roman statesman. When our models/theories etc be overwhelmingly supported by observational and experimental data, and then we find some apparent anomaly, it really is not wise to then drop all that we apparently know and supported overwhelmingly by mountains of data, as against that one single anomaly. Rather, science continues research and the implementation of new ideas and such. In that vane, DM was originally a fudge factor, but since those early days evidence has been forthcoming supporting the concept of DM....the bullet cluster observation being one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster and another lesser known piece of evidence at https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/five-reasons-we-think-dark-matter-exists-a122bd606ba8"The existence of dark matter leaves a characteristic imprint on CMB observations, as it clumps into dense regions and contributes to the gravitational collapse of matter, but is unaffected by the pressure from photons. We can predict these oscillations in the CMB with and without dark matter, which we often present in the form of a power spectrum. The power spectrum of the CMB shows us the strength of oscillations at different sizes of the photons and matter. The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) was the first instrument to measure the CMB power spectrum through the first peak of oscillations, and showed that the existence of dark matter is favored". That's how science works my friend, and we can all be thankful that it does. Isn't that far better then imagining some magical spaghetti monster playing tricks? Nothing else much interesting in your post other then the usual philosophical rambling on and on and the usual questionable analogies, metaphors and similes. Science doesn't believe in electrons....science has the evidence that something exists that causes certain effects that they have labelled electrons. The model fits...the model works...in that regard it is scientific truth and knowledge. Far better then the questionable ramblings, probably influenced by some agenda, of a couple of obviously poor philosophers.