well bill, I am not opening a music store, I am having a discussion with you. I think I read you, and I think you, me. having said that---on your last paragraph about pascals wager , there seems to be a mix up. one of us got the wrong meaning of the what of the who was the "easier way".
but when I say that you are arguing from authority and numbers, I mean that your arguments are rarely specifics but that it must be true, because most scientists say so. if that fails your textbook definition, it does not change the point.
when we describe ourselves as creationists, we are certainly not ashamed of it, however when evolutionists use the term they invariably contrast it with "scientist", as though being a scientist means being evolutionist , or holding that belief [ though claimed as fact ]. this is somewhat bizarre, considering that much, if not most of modern science was conducted by biblical creationists. this also gives the lie to the strange idea that being a creationist will hamper scientific progress.
the bulk of your main post was again claiming that creationists filter the data and evolutionists don't [ or someone corrects them ].
I can only counter by again offering to ,again, quote evolutionist scientists that admit their bias that only naturalistic explanations are accepted, whatever the evidence.

this bias has infiltrated the UK public school system where evolutionism is protected by law. questioning it is effectively banned,
and they call that science ?.