Quote:

All you're doing is questioning our motives, while on the same token you're completely avoiding actual scientific discourse.




How could I discuss things I didn't even had time to read enough about them, and never will have time in my life to investigate them on my own.

Let's take your example of redshift as an index for speed versus as an index for distance:
my knowledge is not high enough to say anything about light waves, at least I have an analogy from our daily experience:
What can I hear when an ambulance drives past?
Sound, wether it comes from near or from far, it can change its loudness but not its wavelenght. While it changes relating the point where I'm standing when the ambulance comes in my direction and when the ambulance leaves.

Please keep in mind that this is an analogy, that means it isn't a proof, it explains only why to me the version of redshift as an indication for speed is more plausible than your suggestion that the scientists had no reason to prefer one option against the other. Saying they prefer one option against another without reason is the assumption that they don't know how to do their job.

Quote:


The only real competition to evolution is creation, but we're not allowed to compete. Why is that? Evolutionists don't want competition, they just want to work with the idea that they're right.




Creation is IMHO not a competition to any serious theory because it not even tries to stay within the conditions of a serious theory.
A 'deus ex machina' like a creator means the destruction of a consistent balance of correlating parts of that whole, that a theory should aspire to.
To carry God into science, means to objectivate him, means to reduce him to mechanisms which don't deserve the name God anymore, ... doesn't the bible say that God is inscrutable?

Quote:


"Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!" (Romans 11:36, 33)