SSM Plebiscite

[PaulP]

Both posts make the same error, you assume because they do not have "evidence for what it is" that it is doesn't exist, that there is not yet an understanding of something is not evidence for it's absence. But I don't blame you it's a commonly arrived at erroneous conclusion that results from cursory investigations.

Your argument is very basic, like saying the object tripped over in a dark room doesn't exist, despite the pain, bruise and embarrassment!

Being hung up on the Dark labels is meaningless, especially given they were deliberately chosen to deride the original data, but the evidence is real in the indirect measurements of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe and in the detection of gravitational effects in the form of things like Einstein Rings. But that evidence still doesn't tell us what they are, just that they are, no belief or faith required.

Eventually we will know what these things are as well, because they are observable, measurable and testable.

You assume because science tells you it's true then it must be. Tripping produces a tangible result, and when you turn the light on you can see that. Maybe the reason they have no evidence after decides of searching, is that it actually doesn't exist.

You assume that because religious types (which I am not by the way) have no evidence that God exists, then that also does not exist ?