Perhaps I should have been more clear. The degree of subjectivity is relative to the person interpeting the science. In Vhehn's case, highly subjective is appropriate.
I tend to agree! In most cases where I've debated atheists it eventually comes to light that their real problem is with organized religion. They cannot get past their issues with religion and simply refuse to see that religion and God are not always one of the same. They can be, and often are, but not always. Compounding the problem, political bias further skews their views, making intellectually honest conversations with them nearly impossible.
How is it that you are unable to answer a simple direct question? Is it because you are afraid of the answer you give if you are honest?
I wondered the same about you, years ago, when I asked you a pivotal (to the discussion) question about the relative motions of the planets.
I don't recall, so since it appears to still be on your mind from years ago (?) ask the question again...
Yeah, that's it. That's why I don't wish to continue an exchange with a disingenuous person who argues in circles when it suits him. Despite the fact that feeding you with fodder for your artistic license is such a meaningful way to spend time.
The question, the discussion, just water under the bridge now. I merely noted then that, backed into a corner, you began evading, which is what you just accused Gabfly of doing.