[Coyoteman]

Some, like Coyoteman, go so far as to say that the word "truth" must be excised from the vocabulary of science.

That, as I have pointed out to you many times, comes from a CalTech physics website. But for those with a short memory, here it is again:

Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source

If you want TRVTH, though, just ask the creationists here. They'll be happy to fill you full of it. But the problem is, each will give you a different version of the TRVTH and defend it to your death. That's why the Religion Forum has such tight moderation rules.

Thanks, science does just fine by seeking to be accurate. That's plenty good enough, don't you think?

[metmom]

If you want TRVTH, though, just ask the creationists here. They'll be happy to fill you full of it.

Good....

In the beginning....

[Mr. Silverback]

Thanks, science does just fine by seeking to be accurate. That's plenty good enough, don't you think?

Cool. How about a truthful and accurate answer to this:

Do you believe eliminating religion should be a main goal of working scientists?

Simple yes or no answer.

Or are you still under that desk?

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

That, as I have pointed out to you many times, comes from a CalTech physics website.

Why is it on your profile page if you don't agree with it? And if you don't agree with it, why do you keep pasting it into your posts?

If you want TRVTH

You really have a psychological issue with this word, "truth". You can't even write it out without mangling it.

So is anything you say about evolution true? A simple yes or no will do.