In science we end with a conclusion In faith we start with 1

Yes, it is very convulted, isn't it? Perhaps we should drop this conversation altogether. I don't think we'll be going anywhere even if we do resume it, because neither of us seems to be capable of getting our point across.

Sorry to bump this thread, but I found a cartoon which illustrates exactly what I am getting at:

So where evidence doesn't exist you take upon yourself to fill in the blanks?

Does the fact that light from stars observed in the Hubble deep field has reached us despite it taking billions of years kind of piss on the whole Creationist idea?

I would say that is bloody interesting. Considering a vast number of my fellow species have the BALLS to say what happened down to a tee, because a group of hobos decided to write a book two thousand years ago. Yes, TWO THOUSAND YEARS, out of BILLIONS, now thats EGOcentricity.

Why is it so difficult to say, "ok, theres no evidence, so I'm yet to form an informed idea of what may have been." Instead of, "ok, theres no evidence, so god must've done it."

Explain what our perception of time has to do with this discussion.