Replies

Evolution is a well-understood factor of biology, which affects all life and will continue to shape life for as long as life continues.

The Big Bang is inferred through observations of the universe. I am not a physicist; I have no idea whether the observational basis of the Big Bang is anywhere close to the evidentiary support of on-going evolution.

The estimated age of the earth is based on pretty solid physical observations. Some things, like the rate of radioactive decay, are constant.

Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is based on the behavior of CO2 fluorescence in the infrared range. I have not heard any really satisfactory explanation of how this fluorescence is supposed to heat up the entire atmosphere, or seen any observational/experimental data to indicate that this is happening. The majority of scientific publications that “demonstrate” AGW are speculations about future calamities that will happen if AGW continues. Speculations, of course, do not demonstrate anything.

So, the evidentiary basis of all of these scientific theories is of various levels of reliability, with evolution probably having the most solid basis and AGW having almost no basis.

“the rate of radioactive decay ~ constant”

So please explain the blind radio-isotope dating from the 1980 Mt. St. Helens eruption that showed ages greater than a million years old. Isn’t the heat and pressure from a volcanic event supposed to reset these atomic clocks? Did you ever stop to consider they used the term supposed b/c they have no scientific instruments to measure atomic decay rates within the magma - the heat and pressure are simply too great. What is the beginning ratio of father/daughter elements?

If you approach evolution as a skeptic the more rocks you uncover the less any of their supposed claims hold true. When has macro evolution ever been observed? Where are the thousands upon thousands of missing links Darwin envisioned or his theory completely falls apart? What is your explanation for stasis or better yet polystrate fossils?

There are loads of evolutionary believers on these threads but they never have even the beginnings of an explanation for these simple questions. I won’t hold my breath for your answers either though.

Evolution is a well-understood factor of biology, which affects all life and will continue to shape life for as long as life continues.

No it is not. What we used to call gene expression (recessive) is now called mutation. The genetic information is not new, not mutated, it already exists and is finally expressed. The words have changed in culture and science to be politically correct.

Too many people have gotten their scientific information from teenage mutant ninja turtles.....................

"Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is based on the behavior of CO2 fluorescence in the infrared range. I have not heard any really satisfactory explanation of how this fluorescence is supposed to heat up the entire atmosphere, or seen any observational/experimental data to indicate that this is happening. The majority of scientific publications that “demonstrate” AGW are speculations about future calamities that will happen if AGW continues. Speculations, of course, do not demonstrate anything."

I agree with your rankings, and with the observation that most AGW publications seem to mostly consist of projections about what will supposedly happen in the future. But I don't think the CO2 fluorescence thing is right. The greenhouse effect comes from the the insulating property of CO2. That it reflects more infrared.