1. No, i said a biologist in so much as he is a biologist, will seek to improve or perfect his field of inquiry, i.e biology. If he were to let his personal bias rule over him in his impersonal pursuit of seeking truth through scientific investigation, his theories would be worthless. And if every biologist did this, so would biology as a whole . This is not the case.
2. Not only are biology papers, like the ones published on evolution, peer reviewed but they are subjected to rigorous scrutiny and it is only after they have passed such scrutiny that they are then accepted by the scientific community.
3. The scientific method is unbiased
4. because as ringo mentioned it negates the possibility of bias when biologists from a wide variety of worldviews all agree to the scientific accuracy of any given theory. Personal biases are cancelled out.
5. Besides, for there to be a bias there has to be a motive. What motive could all biologists, paleontologists, geologists and physicists possibly have in common that they would all 'believe' in science which conforms with the findings made by the ToE? (i.e, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, it contains fossils of extinct species millions of years old etc).
6. The only people who have a faith position here are your lot, who take Genesis as a literal and scientific truth, whereas it was never meant to be scientific, it was'nt written for that purpose(but that's another debate).
7. And as to its usefulness, bacteria and germs can and do 'adapt' to certain types of medication, and so this is very much a valid study in that respect as well. Here, read it for yourself :
1. Actually this IS the case in reference to evolution, (not Biology as a whole since nothing would really be lost if we take the assumption of evolution out of Biology). Whilst studying evolution at university most of the time I would hang around after class and would ask the lecturer questions, only one actually admitted to not knowing the answer, and another acknowledged the problem but didn't really care about it. The others instead gave run-around / deflective answers that didn't address the problem at hand.
Here are a selection from what I can remember
- Darwins finches are used as evidence of change. During a drought it was observed that the % of beak sizes within the population changed dramatically due to the changed environmental conditions. Whist this is change, another study was undertaken after the drought which had shown that after the environmental conditions returned to "normal" then the beak size % also reverted back to its previous %. This infers that whilst change does occur the oscillations in environmental conditions would produce oscillations in variance in traits, thus leading to nothing ever "evolving": since it merely changes and reverts, changes and reverts...
- Darwins finches are also known to interbreed doesn't this infer that they are the same species, (just with different beak sizes, much like the differences in dogs).
- Colour changes in moths is not a trait that is indicative of a species becoming a new organism. It is a benign trait, as if you can change it to all colours under the sun, the organism will still have the same basic body plan aka phenotype, therefore there is no generation of new structures for the organism to become a new phenotype.
- Comparing DNA sequences allows gaps (alignment) on the basis that evolution is assumed to have occurred, therefore using the DNA similarity % based on these comparisons as "evidence" of evolution is circular reasoning because it is based on the assumption that evolution occurred in the first place.
Feel free to try and answer these, however I will state that if established lecturers cannot answer these then I won't be holding my breath. However what this means is that when it comes to the problems of evolution claims like mine fall on deaf ears. Not really sure how much more evidence you want.
as I stated before ALL people are biased, it is a fact of life which you cannot deny. So really all I have said previously has been overkill.
2. Scrutinized by who... other evolutionists!
Do you see the problem here... An analogy would be for me to declare that Australia is the best country in the world and then to have that claim "peer reviewed" only by Australians. Honestly peer review is a joke concerning topics where people's worldviews are concerned.
Perhaps consider if I was reviewing the papers as an agnostic scientist who believes in creation, (and considering the previous citation of evolutionary assumptions / errors), it would be a different story.
3. I never said it was. Here is a hint though.... Evolution isn't based on the scientific method. The scientific method demands EMPIRICAL (observable, testable, repeatable, falsifiable) data with which to support a hypothesis, evolution has no evidence of this nature. Every single one is based on a pre-existing assumptions of evolution, or merely claiming "evolution did it" ad hoc. Furthermore upon finding contradictions the scientific method would demand an annulment of the hypothesis, this doesn't occur with evolution, rather an ad hoc hypothesis is created to "smooth other" the problem... This is how pseudo-science works.
4. As I have mentioned many times, TRUTH is not a popularity vote. That is an argumentum ad populousIII. Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum)
"Vox populi, vox dei." Latin proverb (the voice of the people is the voice of
"Let us not dream that reason can be popular. Passions and feelings may
become popular; but reason always remains the sole property of a few
eminent individuals." —Goethe.
"Seek not the favor of the multitude; it is seldom got by honest and lawful
means. But seek the testimony of the few and number not voices, but
weigh them." —Immanuel Kant.
"Counting noses may be a great method of running a government, but it is
no necessary criterion for truth." —C. S. Lewis
This is the fallacy of deciding truth by opinion polls. "Accept this
because it has popular appeal." It is based on psychological
insecurity, and the need to be loved and accepted by others. You
commit this fallacy when you debate an issue not on the basis of
facts, but rather on the basis of popularity or a popular slogan. This
is grand-standing, playing to the galleries, people-pleasing,
trendiness, snob appeal, jumping on the bandwagon, be apart of
the in-crowd, everybody's doing it, etc. It is a maneuver thatby passes reason and manipulates the passions, prejudices, and
identity of an audience, a tactic often used by advertisers: "One
million people a day can't be wrong! (or can they?). It could be laid
out like this:
1. If most people believe, like, or want something, then that
something must be true, good, valuable, etc.
2. Most people believe, like, or want, XYZ.
3. Therefore, XYZ must be true, good, valuable, etc.
Of course, right is right, and true is true, no matter how few people
may believe or do it. And wrong is wrong, and false is false, no
matter how many people may believe or do it. Truth and value is
not settled by majority opinion; reality is not settled by
This fallacy can have several nuances:
1. Bandwagon argument:
"Of course you want to use Zest toothpaste. 90% of the
American population uses Zest!"
2. Appeal to vanity:
"Only the ultimate in fashion could complement the face of
Bianca Jagger. Spectrum sunglasses--for the beautiful
3. Appeal to snobbery:
"A Rolls Royce is not for everyone. If you qualify as one of
the select few, this distinguished classic may be seen and
driven at British Motor Cars, Ltd. (By appointment only,
4. Consensus Gentium: requires a majority opinion, deciding truth
by a majority vote.
"But, Colombus, no one believes the world is round!"
"The vast majority of scientists believe in evolution."
"But dad, everybody's doing it."http://www3.dbu.edu/...s_relevance.pdf
6. You do realise that atheism, (the belief in unbelief) is also a faith based position. The ONLY true unbiased position is agnosticism, however many people here will point out that it is also a self-conflicting one, (that is why I am a theistic agnostic which makes more sense).
5. And there is the motive for people to live the lie of evolution... It is a security blanket for their belief in atheism.
Additionally I am sure there are some creationists who get swept up with the media storm and believe it due to the mass popularity, (see the definition of argumentum ad populum). Or there are those who go along with it since they will lose their jobs... (see the movie Expelled- No Intelligence Allowed)
7. I never said I doubted that things adapt. What I do doubt is the assumption that those minor adaptions within the species / kind will ever amount to anything than a mere variation.