[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Is my position not clear? In several places and in several ways I've said I think he's wrong. And, yes, you're ABSOLUTELY CORRECT regarding the phrasing used in my OP that IT MAKES NO LOGICAL SENSE that "reasonable, thoughtful, serious researchers" would put trust in inherently unreliable evidence.

But the point here is that MY FRIEND DOESN'T AGREE WITH THIS PROPOSITION. For you and I, simply knowing that the scientific consensus is that the earth is billions of years old is enough evidence that it actually is (For, as you keep correctly pointing out, we're talking about reasonable, thoughtful, and serious researchers after all).

But this standard is not shared by my preacher friend. Thus, we are left in the position of having to engange him
with direct evidence.

You're missing the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't been commenting on your friends claims or beliefs, I've been commenting on the YOUR question in the OP.

[ QUOTE ]
How reliable are these methods? And if they're so unreliable, how can reasonable, thoughtful, and serious researchers trust the validity of their findings / theories?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you honestly believe that the answer to this question, ( your question), can be "yes, r,t,s researchers can trust their findings using unreliable methods."
or is the only possible answer, "no, if they are r,t,s researchers then their methods are reliable by definition".

Who cares what your plumber thinks ...you are the one asking the question, "an honest question" you say. So, you must believe that the various answers are possible, yet this post seems to put you in the 'how can it be otherwise' camp.

"For you and I..."

see the issue I've been raising? It's not an "honest question" it's a conceptually flawed one. AS my first response pointed out, you don't have to go outside the question to know the answer.

luckyme