Hi ScottyDouglas,
I have been in many discussions in the realm of evolution. In the scientific method the evidence is more important than finding the truth. Finding the truth is not important to science only observing and documenting evidence is.
Science is about understanding objective empirical evidence. The basic assumption of science is that objective empirical evidence represents reality. By developing hypothesis to explain the objective empirical evidence we make an approximation of reality, then that hypothesis is used to make predictions that can be tested against reality by whether or not the predictions result in new objective empirical evidence validates (occurs as predicted) or falsifies (does not occur as predicted or occurs when prediction says it shouldn't) the hypothesis.
By rejecting falsified concepts, the remaining hypothesis are a better approximation of reality than before, by further testing of validated concepts the cycle of approximation continues. Every test brings us a little bit closer in our approximation, but we can never be sure that we have reached a "
true" representation of reality.
No matter how good a theory is, nor how well tested it is, it is still a tentative explanation of reality, subject to further refinement as more knowledge is developed through testing, testing, and testing.
Since there is no truth to be found inside of science does alot of circumstancial evidence make truth?
How could it? Circumstantial evidence is inadequate for testing hypothesis, and hypothesis can only approximate reality at best, be wildly wrong at worst.
Circumstantial evidence may be used as a basis for an hypothesis, but that hypothesis then needs to be tested against objective empirical evidence before it can be considered anything more than a conjecture.
Alien visitations would be an example of circumstantial evidence that can be used to form an hypothesis that aliens have visited earth, but we need to test that hypothesis with objective empirical evidence before we can say that this is anything more than a possibility.
I personally do not think it does. But many I'm sure feel that all the evidence compels one to determine that it should be considered as truth.
And personally I don't think you will find anyone who agrees with this.
I have no doubt that the scientific community is very skilled at thier craft and expertise. Though how can one obtain the skills to be considered a expert in the field of dating objects of considerable age?
By going to university, getting a PhD in the field, doing some field work, having that work reviewed by other scientists who will treat it with extreme skepticism, and over many years of consistent quality work becoming recognized by other scientists as someone who is knowledgeable in your field.
Though how can one obtain the skills to be considered a expert in the field of dating objects of considerable age?
You seem to have a pet peeve about how dating is done with the accuracy accepted in science. Once again I recommend you read the
Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread, as it will walk you through ways that dating methods can be verified and validated.
Can and does a scientific evolutionary believing person actually want the truth? ...
A "scientific evolutionary believing person" wants to see improved approximations of reality, as does any scientist or science believing person.
However, science does not talk about believing, just as it does not talk about truth, rather it talks about
acceptance, accepting tested theories as good explanations of objective empirical evidence, and good at making usable predictions that help find new objective empirical evidence.
... Or do they have previous beliefs in something and fit facts and adjust theory. ...
That is fraud, and yes there are some people who commit fraud in science, just as there are people who commit fraud outside science. When it is discovered (usually by other scientists testing the results to confirm them) then the career of the person who commits fraud is over.
... This is alot like white lying. ...
Fraud is not like "white lying" it is outright lying. Lying and fraud are despised in science.
... I agree that theories should be improved and evidnece collected. ...
Good, because the process never ends. Because no theory can be shown to be true, the best we can do is to improve our approximation of reality by continuing to test theories, even long established ones (like evolution).
But not when the theory has limitless bounds continuing to add and take away to the point were a common man can not achieve the ability to comprehind it.
All theories necessarily have limitless bounds until they are falsified.
The ability of a common man - especially one who has not studied the particular field in any scholastic depth - to comprehend a theory is a problem for that common man, not for science or scientists. The common man can improve his ability to comprehend by taking courses in the field, or by studying the subject from scientific sources.
A real good theory I propose is the origin of life is so easy to understand that a common man unknowable of science can achieve it.
Propose your
theory hypothesis, and tell us how you think you can test it.
People are smart and chose to ignore that ability.
Scientists are smart and they are trained in specific fields to get a high degree of knowledge in those fields, but a biologist cannot necessarily understand a theory from physics, nor a physicist understand a theory in biology, because that is outside their area of expertise.
The real problem with all of evolution is not that evolution claims us as evolved from a previous species. Or that it doesnt not supply God with direct creation ability. But it out right denies the use of predicting and estimate work is heavily involved when evolution is concerned
When you come to understand that all science is a tentative understanding of reality, that all the tentative understanding of reality uses prediction and estimation to set goals for further testing against objective empirical evidence, then you will come to understand that this is an accepted part of doing science -- the results are tentative, the results are an approximation of reality -- and then perhaps you will come to understand that evolution is not special in this regard.
If a palentologist, scientist, or evolutionist does not say up front that thier dating charts are in fact predicted at best from modern day samples, thier ability to observe age, and thier estimates of ages by the knowledge they have to work with is not truthful.
Again, read
14C Calibration and Correlations to see how the ability to measure age can be validated by objective empirical evidence of actual age. Also see
Consistent Radiometric dates and
Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective.
When you see an age reported in a scientific article you will see a range of dates that represents the uncertainty of the dating method. That uncertainty has been established by testing the method against objective empirical evidence.
So the main question is for anyone and anybody.
Is learning the truth of origin more important?
Or is learning and predicting by the evidence collected more important?
As there is no known way of determining truth, the best we can do is approximate reality by learning and prediction, by collecting objective empirical evidence, and by continuing to test our concepts of reality against the objective empirical evidence.
Enjoy.
™ Version 4.2
