Essentially, the distance of stars and the issue of free will are huge. They're huge because you have no wiggle room to reinterpret the data without assuming you're right from the outset. This provides a nice test for me to determine your true position.

Issues that you DO have wiggle room with, the relative scarcity of fossils, for example, you use to the fullest, with SOME justification of scientific reasoning. However, to hold a belief regardless of no evidence for your case, and then to claim to be arguing from objective, scientific grounds on other issues is ridiculous. You can't be objective whenever you have a hint of an argument to make (fossil record), and argue from faith otherwise. (starlight) Your scientific reasoning is simply subjectivity masquerading as reason. The fact that nearly self-contained issues such as starlight and free will have no impact on you whatsoever belies your inherent biases for creationism.

I don't get frustrated at your opinions, I get frustrated when you portray yourself as a scientist.

• Scientist?!?!?!?!?!? - kc2gwx - May 31, 2002 - 20:50 UTC
  • "Scientific" would be a better term - stormcrow - June 1, 2002 - 00:10 UTC
    • K - kc2gwx - June 1, 2002 - 03:09 UTC