quote:
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.
I think that you have misunderstood. Science is not about finding the big-T final Truth (that's not available to us). But it is about finding the truth in the ordinary sense of the word - as best we can (and if there is a better method for finding out truths about our physical world I don't know of it). The whole point about observing and documenting evidence is a part of finding the truth. It allows others to investigate and confirm the results - or not - which helps find errors in the original work - and makes details that may be useful available to others.
quote:
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 acquiring the skills and techniques that allow us to successfully do just that. I know that they give results that your intellectual masters hate and refuse to accept. But that's because they don't want the truth.
quote:
Can and does a scientific evolutionary believing person actually want the truth?
The vast majority of them do. I don't think that many creationists want the truth at all.
quote:
Or do they have previous beliefs in something and fit facts and adjust theory. This is alot like white lying.
I would say that that describes creationism more. And I don't think I'd be so generous as to describe it all as white lying.
quote:
I agree that theories should be improved and evidnece collected. 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. 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. People are smart and chose to ignore that ability.
But what if the truth IS that complicated ?
quote:
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. 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.
Carbon dating has been calibrated based on genuinely old samples. To deny that would not be truthful - it would be a lie. In fact all dating methods are thoroughly checked by cross-calibrating the results of different methods. The basis is not simply theoretical (although the theoretical basis is very strong - and not something that can lightly be rejected by an honest and informed person).
This is a fine example of creationists (in this case Young Earth Creationists) adjusting the "facts" to fit them to their pre-existing idea of a young Earth.
quote:
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?
Which is more important, achieving the goal, or honestly and diligently applying the best methods to achieve the goal ?
Well in the case where the goal is difficult to achieve even with our best efforts, and if it is hard to know if we have truly achieved it even with our best efforts, then surely anyone who wants to achieve that goal can do nothing better than to honestly and diligently apply the best methods we have.
Determining the origin of life is just such a case.
If you honestly want to find the truth - or at least the best approximation we can hope to get - then you have to do it by the scientific method. There is no alternative.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
