The not so distant star light problem

The sun was faster then.

You can measure how far away stars are yourself with a telescope, some trigonometry and a little patience (you have to wait about 6 months between observations.) - this works for up to maybe 1000 light years if you can get access to a prety good instrument. Satellites take it back further.After that there are various methods used, can you explain what's not testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable about them?

Yeh, that'll work. It's always best to get a second opinion from a landscape artist before launching your next Mars mission.

I suppose it helps your delusion to believe this nonsense but have you ever considered that it might just be wrong?I'd be surprised if the majority of atheists could give you a good description of evolution - I became an atheist before I'd even heard of it. It's been said here a million times so you must have read it, all atheism is, is a non belief in God(s). You don't have to know anything about evolution to be an atheist.On the other side of the fence, you don't need to be an atheist to accept evolution - in fact, the vast majority of Christians accept evolution.When you say that "theistic evolutionists usually have very cozy relationship with atheists, and very hostile relationships with other religious people." what you mean is that both science AND religion disagrees with you. In other words, your crazy beliefs are not accepted by 99.99999% of the people on earth - or thereabouts.This won't bother you for a minute, of course, because crazy people know that it's the world that's wrong, not them, but as we're all here, it's probably worth pointing out anyway.

You do realise that you only know about all these people because they were proved RIGHT don't you?Do you think the science books would be full of references to, say, Newtonian gravity, if he was wrong? How many statues do you think there would be of Darwin in natural history museums if later scientists had been able to prove him wrong?If Newton hadn't written his Principia and concentrated instead only on his alchemy, you wouldn't have heard of him because he was WRONG about it.

Well that kind of kills the conversation doesn't it? If a fact contradicts a belief, the fact is wrong. Why bother arguing then? you're always right and science is always wrong. But miraculously, science is only wrong when it butts up against a religious belief - and not just any religious belief, just the one you hold.The rest of the time, like when it wants to make a new drug or send a guy to Mars, it's right. Funny that - I wonder how you think science knows when and how to be wrong? Do you think a few million biologists, paeleontologists, archaeologists, geologists and physicists read these threads, then collude so as to wrong in exactly the right places for you?