Since no-one knows what I REALLY believe in except for me, I'll leave that for another time. There is much in science which can be and has been demonstrated though empirical evidence to be "truth". Aircraft going aloft, and fuel calculations would be evidence of this. But, there are areas of science which makes claims which have no empirical evidence to back them up. Then the "best guess" approach is used. Case in point: attempts to relate fossils found in one layer of strata as being related to fossils found in a different layer of strata because there are some micro-structural similarities - ignoring the macro-structural difference. These fossils have hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions, which separate each other from the strata in which they were found. Logic would suggest that there should be additional fossils in the record between each of these that would show additional micro-structural changes if one truly evolved into another. Well, this has never been shown to be the case in the fossil record - not anywhere - not with any animal in which the claim is that it became something else. Scientific principals related to chemistry, engineering, etc. does not fall into the same category as evolution.
Seen any gravitons lately? And that pesky "red shift" which the Hubble is having such a great time. My point is that scientific "truth" is input to and results from scientific "theories." I assume you know what a scientific theory is, right?
Aircraft going aloft, and fuel calculations would be evidence of this. But, there are areas of science which makes claims which have no empirical evidence to back them up.
Aircraft going aloft are the results of scientific theories that later were "proven" to be correct more often than not. If they were proved to be true no airplane would ever fall down. The physical world is built on engineering principles built on theories.
Then the "best guess" approach is used.
"Best Guess" is never used. Excruciating research is used and cross-referenced to establish the proper classification of findings.
Case in point: attempts to relate fossils found in one layer of strata as being related to fossils found in a different layer of strata because there are some micro-structural similarities - ignoring the macro-structural difference. These fossils have hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions, which separate each other from the strata in which they were found. Logic would suggest that there should be additional fossils in the record between each of these that would show additional micro-structural changes if one truly evolved into another. Well, this has never been shown to be the case in the fossil record - not anywhere - not with any animal in which the claim is that it became something else.
I see you get your thinking points (and "facts") from AnswersInCreation or a similar anti-science site. I invite you to substantiate your interesting, if somewhat specious, "analysis" with peer-reviewed scientific journal findings. "Logic" (guessing) may suggest verticle strata findings but the reality is that life on Earth is sparse (all of the humans on the Earth could fit in the state of Texas). Unscientific bloviating from the Creationist community of "we ought to find so-and-so" don't represent any reasonable or reliable argumentation.
Scientific principals [sic] related to chemistry, engineering, etc. does [sic] not fall into the same category as evolution.
Yes they do. Unless by that you mean "these things fall into 'things I understand.' Evolution falls into 'things I don't understand.'