Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is truth or evidence more important in science and evolution?
ScottyDouglas
Member (Idle past 4331 days)
Posts: 79
Joined: 05-10-2012


Message 1 of 2 (662342)
05-14-2012 10:25 PM


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.
Since there is no truth to be found inside of science does alot of circumstancial evidence make truth?
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.
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?
Can and does a scientific evolutionary believing person actually want the truth? Or do they have previous beliefs in something and fit facts and adjust theory. This is alot like white lying. 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.
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.
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?
Edited by ScottyDouglas, : No reason given.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add blank lines between paragraphs.

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 2 (662344)
05-14-2012 10:58 PM


Thread Copied to Is It Science? Forum
Thread copied to the Is truth or evidence more important in science and evolution? thread in the Is It Science? forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024