[templar]

We've achieved enlightenment. Is this correct?

There is a difference between expanding knowelege of the truth and changing what truth is. I believe in absolutes, not changing (evolving) 'truths'. And, as I mentioned in my first post, I expect to be criticized for this.

[Dimensio]

I believe in absolutes, not changing (evolving) 'truths'.

The problem is that sometimes what you believe is the absolute "truth" isn't, it just appears that way because conditions have always been right to create the observation. Science is about challenging established "absolute truths" to see if they hold up. If they don't, then they weren't really an "absolute truth" to begin with, and the answer is something that we've yet to discover.

I believe absolute truths exists. I just don't believe that we've discovered most of them yet, and I believe that quite a bit of what people think are "absolute" truths really aren't.

[Shryke]

I believe in absolutes, not changing (evolving) 'truths'.

You may be right. I'll contend, however, that our ability to comprehend those truths is quite limited. This may explain your observed "changing" truths. Trial and error.