That's the fallacy of thinking we need an absolute total understanding of everything in order for objective truth to be understandable as certain aspects, attributes, properties and characteristics of the diversity, variability and multiplicity of existence.

Good point. I was trying to make the point that we don't need to define "Objective Truth", or even a unified "Common Truth"...so as long as we reach a "Common Truth" that meets our basic needs in security and economy. This is the the objective reality that is shared in common for common knowledge to be attained and communicated about that concerns me.

The video you show demonstrates what I'm talking about, how subjective determinations devoid of verification and actual grounding in reality, can often be false.

Exactly what I was using it to demonstrate; I was not trying to defend Creation ;> This is the clash between Subjective Truths.

We can't, or shouldn't, be redoing re-verification of every single thing ourselves such as experiments scientists can conduct which we are limited from doing ourselves. What they say is true so long as it is true, based on our belief, trust, faith and loyalty in what they say.

Agreed. This goes back to the clash of Subjective Truths. Aligning Subjective Truths , IMHO, requires coercion at some point. I don't think that is a good thing, until there is an actual point of harm...and even in those cases, I'm not sure how far we should intervene (faith healing for children, for example). There is definitely some utilitarian trade-off in science versus religion (I touched on this in the Circular Logic post).

Good points all, and if I ever come back to tighten this post up (which is the current plan), I'll try to make my own points clearer!