" ... just to make your arguments from experimental, testable, observable science."

You don't know what "experimental, testable, observable science" is, do you, Pete? In fact, you quite obviously don't know what science is. What science most definitely isn't, is a competing dogma to religion! All you can do is parrot stuff from, so-called, 'creationist scientists'. But if you had even the remotest understanding of science, you would know that the term 'creationist scientist' is an oxymoron - like 'kind sadist' or 'blind cyclist' or 'inland submarine'. A REAL scientist doesn't start off from a position of 'absolute truth' and work backwards from there. A real scientist doesn't expend all of his efforts trying to discredit the work of other scientists whose findings happen to conflict with his notions of absolute truth. A real scientist does often challenge the findings of other scientists - but that's called 'peer review' and it's a key aspect of modern science. What also drives modern science forward is uncertainty, unexpected findings and competing interpretations of data. Just because a particular scientist finds something puzzling or seemingly anomalous, doesn't mean that every scientist then has to pack his bags, throw in the towel and declare: "Right this means God did it after all and we should all go home!"

Imagine for a moment, Pete, sitting before a panel composed of such luminaries as Isaac Newton, Robert Hooke, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Paul Dirac, Edwin Hubble, Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman and telling them: "I read on a website that your all wrong and God did it really!" A little presumptuous perhaps? What do think they would say to you (if they could be bothered to speak to such a breathtakingly arrogant idiot at all)?