The question the guy asked was concerning predictions. This is a good example of science:
You have a hypothesis (all animals lived at the same time, 6000 years ago, and died in the same flood).
You make a prediction (trilobites and lobsters should be found in the same places in the fossil record).
You make an observation (trilobites and lobsters are not found together in the fossil record).
Your observation contradicts your prediction, hence either the observation or the prediction are wrong. If repeated observations keep on contradicting your prediction, then you prediction is wrong (or at least not fully correct).
I find it laughable that you would accuse Darwinian of bias when he is simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the man's position (and indeed, the bias). The guy who wrote the paper has evidence against his position, he knows it (since he stated it), and yet because of his presuppositions (i.e. "Trilobites and Lobsters did live together") he cannot reject his beliefs.
Science looks down upon such people. You may argue your belief for eternity, but at the end of the day, if the evidence is contradicting you time after time, your belief *is* wrong. That is how science works, it's how it has always worked. It's how we have doubled life expectancy in a matter of years, how we have mastered technology for long distance communication, cracked the genome, etc, etc.
Science has no time for people who cling onto beliefs despite the opposing evidence. If your hypothesis doesn't hold out, it is rejected. Simple as that.
You have a hypothesis (all animals lived at the same time, 6000 years ago, and died in the same flood).
You make a prediction (trilobites and lobsters should be found in the same places in the fossil record).
You make an observation (trilobites and lobsters are not found together in the fossil record).
Your observation contradicts your prediction, hence either the observation or the prediction are wrong. If repeated observations keep on contradicting your prediction, then you prediction is wrong (or at least not fully correct).
I find it laughable that you would accuse Darwinian of bias when he is simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the man's position (and indeed, the bias). The guy who wrote the paper has evidence against his position, he knows it (since he stated it), and yet because of his presuppositions (i.e. "Trilobites and Lobsters did live together") he cannot reject his beliefs.
Science looks down upon such people. You may argue your belief for eternity, but at the end of the day, if the evidence is contradicting you time after time, your belief *is* wrong. That is how science works, it's how it has always worked. It's how we have doubled life expectancy in a matter of years, how we have mastered technology for long distance communication, cracked the genome, etc, etc.
Science has no time for people who cling onto beliefs despite the opposing evidence. If your hypothesis doesn't hold out, it is rejected. Simple as that.
