Replies

You're only digging yourself deeper. If you lack the ability to refute the papers, you should stop trying just ridicule them (or me).

I admit I am not a biologist or trained in that field (I am a EE with a BA in Philosophy). But I do know that we have a good grasp of Physics and Molecular Science because we can prove it by launching space shuttles and creating antibiotics. That does not mean there are molecules and atoms, just that it is useful to talk about them the way we do.

But I cannot confirm the half life of Krypton empirically, only through deduction, so that is why I get frustrated with many of these theories or hypothesis, especially with all the junk science like global warming that is out there. Its just real hard these days to separate the real enchilada from those who seek Federal Grants. Being an engineer, I just have much more faith in empirically proven science.

...so that is why I get frustrated with many of these theories or hypothesis, especially with all the junk science like global warming that is out there.

Global warming as a theory is ten or twenty years old. Evolution is more than two hundred years old, 165 if you limit it to Darwin's initial speculations. As global warming faces a hundred years of predictions and evidence gathering, it will stand or fall. Evolution has already passed that test.

I admit I am not a biologist or trained in that field

That's okay, neither am I.

But I do know that we have a good grasp of Physics and Molecular Science because we can prove it by launching space shuttles and creating antibiotics.

And we have a good grasp of evolution because we can put it to use as well, and because we find countless pieces of evidence that it has taken place.

But I cannot confirm the half life of Krypton empirically, only through deduction,

Um, okay, I'll bite -- why not? Measure its decay rate over a year or so (or even a few minutes, with a large enough sample), and you've just empirically confirmed its half life. ⁸¹Kr has a halflife of only 210,000 years, it's not as hard as measuring proton decay.

so that is why I get frustrated with many of these theories or hypothesis, especially with all the junk science like global warming that is out there.

I get frustrated with all sorts of junk science too (*cough*scientificcreationism*cough*), but that's not a good reason to throw out or be extremely skeptical of science that is very well validated.

just real hard these days to separate the real enchilada from those who seek Federal Grants.

It's not so hard if you take the time to actually look into it.

Being an engineer, I just have much more faith in empirically proven science.

Evolution *is* "empirically proven science". It's used every day to produce solutions to hard problems (via genetic algorithms), and to generate novel life forms and organic chemicals for agriculture, pharmaceuticals, etc.