I explained the reason for this already. If you don't want to take it at face value, don't, but thats how the events unraveled.
If you try to lock horns in a scientific arena, what you say and use as references WILL be scrutinized. It's science, that's how progress is made. If they make it out the other end, you've got something.
The idea I'm speak of is referred to as peak oil theory.
Quite aware of this. However saying "It's just a theory" shows an improper application.
Both evolution and peak oil are theories. If we want to get technical again, we can classify one as a more established theory and the other as recent hypothesis, so be it. In the end, you're just splitting hairs and missing the bigger picture.
The term "theory" differs when used outside of the scientific realm (hence the line "It's just a theory"). Evolutionary theory is scientific. Peak Oil theory is mathematical and economic. Two COMPLETELY different worlds, and another improper application.
Thats life. Intelligent design can write off much of the theory of evolution as coincidence. Perhaps our current means of testing the theory are inaccurate, but that is a more philosophical question of what is "right" and what is "wrong."
That's a LOT to write off, especially with no evidence (as ID has absolutely none). ID's problem lies in its lack of testability and the ability to be falsified. It's not scientific.
You just perceive that evolution is more concrete than peak oil based on the notion that modern science has the facts correct or mostly correct.
Evolution is more concrete because ALL of the facts and evidence (yes, read ALL) that survive peer review scrutiny point in that exact direction. Do you think the idea that whales evolved from land mammals was made in a haze of bong smoke? Sounds like it, but no.
Oh, and yes, modern science has the facts. Think about that the next time your fingers grace a keyboard.
Peak Oil is less concrete because it can be HEAVILY skewed because of things such as "they're pissed at us". Peak Oil attempts to make a constant out of an uncontrollable variable (we humans) and the numbers have reflected this several times.
Tell me honestly, do you think a Saudi prince is going to let us know just how much oil he's got? If we know that number, he doesn't get his diamond Bentley. He doesn't like that, therefore he can "cook" the numbers to his liking, usually making them much lower than normal. Drives up the price. No end consumer is going to spot the error in the math... do you count the barrels?
Peak oil works *IF* you supply solid numbers. That's why it predicted OUR peak oil. We didn't skew the numbers. However if you look at the end results per year, you can see someone's been telling a couple of fibs, and that makes the end result invalid.
A mathematical equation only works with the correct numbers.