Yes, Musket is right - to start by regarding your initial hypothesis as absolute truth, and dismissing any data which doesn't fit that hypothesis, is not the way that real science is done.

You keep banging on about not being able to do scientific experiments on the past (which of the works of the Rev. Dr. Teaparty Fundamentalist did you find that in?) but as Stu says, real scientists have brought to bear the formidable "methods [of] palaeontology, geology, biology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, mathematics etc etc" on questions about the past and their conclusions sound pretty convincing to me.

On the other hand, you and your creationist chums, can't prove that the biblical account of Creation is true - although you claim to have faith that it's true - but questions of faith have nothing to do with science. In addition you can't prove that God, the ultimate creator exists either; the vague, waffly statements about ineffability, that you have used in the past sound, however you try to phrase them, like dodging the question.

Finally, for the umpteenth time, if all of modern science is wrong (which I very, very seriously doubt) that still doesn't mean that the biblical account of Creation is the sole remaining explanation for life on Earth!