Can you provide sources? The effect from dark energy has been tiny. That's part of the problem models have with it, it's very fine tuned because the universe is very close to being flat (ie no dark energy). If the universe was just a little bit different in it's behaviour we'd not need dark energy in our models. Until 10 years ago we couldn't even measure the derivation from 'flat' enough to know it wasn't. The universe has been expanding since the big bang and a tiny tiny amount of that has been increased by dark energy. But since it's an exponential effect, it gets more and more powerful as time passes. However, the derivation from the "No dark energy, usual expansion" to "A tiny amount of dark energy, accelerating expansion" is only now coming to light. If the universe wasn't expanding and was static, then we'd need dark energy again, as something to hold off the collapse due to gravity. This was the original view point of Einstein when he first proposed the cosmological constant. No, I think you're ignorant because you post things like this when a simple Google or Wiki would tell you there's more evidence for the BB. You talk about how the stuff I say is easy to find and yet... you haven't found it... Then there's things like not knowing any GR but claiming to know better than everyone else in the world who does do GR. Things like that. We don't have to jump to conclusions about your ignorance. You provide us with plenty of evidence. So the first is nonsense and the second you don't know how to critique?