On one of my favorite shows, CSI (I like the original and CSI New York the best), detectives sift through evidence to catch criminals.
Now, I realize these are only fictional shows. However, every week they showcase actual scientific methods that real detectives use in the real world every day to catch bad guys.
None of these detectives is usually actually present at the scene of the murders, rapes, burglaries, etc., yet using evidence they are able to piece together a pretty accurate picture of what happened.
My question is, would you consider forensice science to be "real" science?
CSI is also my favorite shows. I watch:
1) CSI Miami
3) And the original one which is my favorite.
CSIs put together evidence to be tried in court. CSIs don't judge or convict, so their jobs end once their professional opinions, and facts are all put together for the court to hear.
Once the court gets the evidence it has to go through an investigation on whether the evidence is creditable and "non-bias" (not tainted by a bias opinion of a CSI). And it has to be presented that way. Then it is up to the lawyers to use this evidence for their client, or against the other side.
A person can be convicted on as much opinion as they are on fact. This is also why the jury is polled before they are selected to listen to the case. To make sure that their bias opinion does not send an innocent man to prison or worse.
And because of all the checks and balances done it is science.
Evolution and peer reviews are done very differently. Everyone that does this already believes evolution is a true fact. Most think creation is stupid, and that only uneducated ignorant people believe it. And the majority are atheist (No God no Creator). No one is polled to make sure their is no bias in the decision making. All creation evidence is already deemed fraudulent even before it is discussed or looked into. The person who finds the evidence is "always" accused of frauding it, even though no witnesses to the crime are ever produced. It's just basically assumed.If you had to go to court:
Now in the world of forensic science, would you want the jury and the evidence stacked against you in this manner even before the case is heard (before you even stepped into the court room)? Would you want a jury that was not polled for bias against you to hear your case? Would you want evidence that is always considered fraudulent and fake even before it is seen or discussed in court to be your defense? Would you want to walk into a court room where over 90% of everyone in there already deems you are a liar even before you open your mouth?
Also considering that evolutionists that do the peer reviews are usually:
1) Employed in a job where believing evolution is required.
2) Have been schooled in college where evolution taught as a true fact.
3) Have incomes that reflect their acceptance of evolution.
4) And are basically required to reject creation.
Would you say that "any" creationist would get a fair shake even due to all this? And if so, if a panel of creationists peer reviewers were set up in the very same way that the panel for evolution peer reviewers is. And you had to go before them instead of or own peers for peer review. Would you say you would get a fair shake?
You see the checks and balances required for fairness, and non-bias opinion, do not exist where evolution is concerned. All evidence, creation or not, either "conforms" to the accepted theory. Or is rejected, and debunked. Because if science were really out to find truth regardless of what it is. Each theory and idea would be allowed to exist while evidence for it is found. And which ever was the best would be in front and everything else would be at different levels of truth. It would be like a race for truth. And the money spent on each would be funded out almost evenly so that each idea had a chance to be proven.
But instead, which theory gets 99% of all the money?
Which theory has the most people employed to prove it?
Which theory is required teaching of any schooled deemed credible?
Which theory has the most professional animation used to show processes that cannot even be observed?
Which theory is constantly promoted by Hollywood?
So in comparison, does any other idea even have a fair chance to prove itself when science has already declared a winner?
Don't believe a winner has been declared? What theory is every idea (other theories) compared to? And if they don't meet the grade (conform or support the declared winner), what happens to the theory and the person who dared challenge the declared winner? Credibility destroyed.
So seeing all this, would you say the tables are already stacked to prove evolution no matter what?
Besides, evolution organizations being able to become non-profit, when they are already government funded, is using what was meant to be a separated from the state. Combining it to get and unfair advantage. Which puts science in the right position to take over all non-profits once socialism kicks Christians and creation totally out of everything. Which was the goal of Darwinists anyway. Rid the opposition, and make only one choice available.