There is no controversy in science over the shape of the earth.
No and there hasn't been much controversy historically either. As a link I believe I sent you earlier pointed out that the church has been wrongly accused and never supported a flat earth view. But this was a view promoted by evolutionists in the late 1800's and early 1900's as a way of discrediting the church.
There is no controversy in science over the age of the earth or the age of the universe; at least nothing that would change accepted numbers by more than 10 percent.
I beg to differ. There are scientists who question the assumptions underlying dating methods. That you refuse to acknowledge them does not mean that there is not a controversy, it simply means that you wish to ignore the controversy and have the world adopt a groupthink mentality that agrees with your world view.
There is no controversy in science over the geologic column
Again, I disagree. There are scientists who disagree with the geologic column. This whole thread touches on this. How can you say there is no controversy. Wishful thinking.
There is no controversy in science over common descent.
Absolutely there is controversy over common descent. Again this thread is proof. Only in your super narrowly defined world of science is there no controversy.
There is no controversy over the age of fossils, give or take about five percent.
Yes there is controversy. There is controversy over the assumptions underlying dating methods. There is no way to know how often different dating methods do not correlate. And there is bias built into the dating game used by scientists.
There is no controversy in science over the constancy of the speed of light.
Actually there is still some very small controversy over this. I saw an article published this year that was again questioning this, from yet another angle.
There is nothing in science that points to a coding function for 95 percent of human DNA.
This is the one that you have already mentioned has been questioned by someone you trust and I appreciate your honesty in mentioning that. But I will go ahead and add, that in addition to finding function for some of the code previously thought about as junk. That all of the "junk" code seems to play a part in cell size and definition. Without that "junk" DNA, we might be very different creatures if we were viable at all.
Are you sure? I thought it was Protestants casting disrepute on Rome.
Who's challenged it? How do they explain what Dr. S. called "Kilroy DNA"? Is there a reason cows and whales share some of the same genetics, but horses don't? Wouldn't an ID-ist predict that whales would share fish DNA, and cows horse DNA? If not, why not?
Maybe, maybe not. Some of it is definitely the remains of viruses, and some is definitely no-longer-in-use genes (human vitamin C and ofactory detectors, among others like hens' teeth and horses' toes).
Perhaps the ID-ists could start earning their keep and do some experiments.
And that, my friend, is why more than one method is used to test a sample. They can't all be wrong and still give concurrent ages for a sample, can they? I mean, one can be a little leary when one uses only one method, but when a second method using a different radioisotope with a different halflife backs up the date given by the first, then one is more likely to be accurate in his estimate for the age of the sample, is one not? And, if a third method using an entirely different radioisotope with a different halflife than the first two also confirms the age of the sample given by those first two, one is approaching certainty in one's estimate, n'est-ce pas?