"theres no point in me expanding on that now as it will be easier to do that when I know where this is leading."

Now that's not fair Pete; I've sat here and typed out detailed replies to the points you've raised in your emails in the spirit of debate, and you're totally ducking two questions I've asked you.

"you can not experiment on the past. you can only interpret the data. there are numerous examples of changing analysis of such data by evolutionists. that's a good thing ,you will say, but it also demonstrates that origins research is far from certain, unlike proper science where repeatable, testable ,observation can give accurate conclusions."

OK, lots wrong here. I really don't think you know what science is Pete. You can't experiment on the past by sticking a bit of it in a test tube and tipping gloop on it to see what happens, but experimental science is a far more complex activity than mixing stuff up in the lab.

It certainly is possible to test evolutionary theory, for example by close examination of the fossil record to see how species change over time and how speciation occurs. The debate about how this occurs is ongoing but the debate is vigorous (and fascinating) and based on excellent, repeatable, observable and testable science. Many disciplines are needed to make sense of the rock record but we've been at it for couple of hundred years now and a consensus is emerging. The idea that any of the natural and earth sciences are not 'proper science' is risible and without any foundation.

Data analysis will change over time. Science is not in stasis at any point in time and revisiting data with new techniques to test theories is fundamental to research. Just as it should be.