Is truth or evidence more important in science and evolution?

I think there is some grain of truth here, but that such truth points to a strength rather than a weakness of the scientific method.Science is about uncovering the truth by use of the scientific method. But the scientific method itself requires evidence, and the use of evidence is what assures us that we have found the truth.What I question is why such a thing should be controversial? Why should the need to question and probe assertions for their truth be an indictment?I note that in this OP of yours there are a number of assertions, and I'll list a few of them. In the interest of making a point, I'm going to limit my list to those assertions that seem to me to be false.1.But it [evolution?] out right denies the use of predicting and estimate work is heavily involved when evolution is concerned. (I am not sure what the antecedent for "it" is meant to be, but I cannot come up with one that would make this statement factual.2. 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. (I interpret this to mean that only theories which men like ScottyDouglas can understand are worth improving and collecting evidence on. Presumably this rules out even a possibility that quantum mechanics and general relativity are useful)3. Though how can one obtain the skills to be considered a expert in the field of dating objects of considerable age? (I interpret this as an assertion that there cannot be expertise in determining the dates of objects)4. Since there is no truth to be found inside of science. (No interpretation needed)5. Is learning the truth of origin more important? Or is learning and predicting by the evidence collected more important? (I take this as a have you stopped beating your wife yet question that falsely asserts that there is a dichotomy between learning the truth and applying the scientific method.)It seems to me to be fairly obvious that I cannot rely on ScottyDouglas to instruct me on what is truth. I need to be able to check what ScottyDouglas says. In short, I'd like some evidence. (And some logical argument too, but that's for another post).

I cannot speak for jar, but I had the impression that you were saying that God had taught you a bunch of stuff about physics and biology. The feelings you have that God spoke to you about regarding your sins and forgiveness don't seem to be about any of that.Surely your point cannot be that science cannot provide you with salvation, because nobody ever claimed otherwise.