all you lack is a demonstration that what you say is true. being a creationist, you have a bias against science...but we already know that I have a bias against a certain evolving interpretation of observations which is called science by you and your friends. It shouldn't be called science because it is _base_d on assumptions which are faith-_base_d. Science is _base_d on observations which can be demonstrated in laboratory conditions. No one has demonstrated that an organism can have an increase in morphology (with added function) through scientific observation (lab experiments). Since this doesn't seem to be demonstratable, the macro-evolving ideas that are touted as science and fact need to be called interpretations of scientific observations (instead of science ) and possibilities (instead of fact ). [SNIP] The remainder of your post is _base_d on your strawman definition of science. Here's a few _link_s that may get you back on track:
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html http://buglady.clc.uc.edu/biology/bio104/sci_meth.htm http://www.project2061.org/tools/sfaaol/sfaatoc.htm http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html