Gosh -- I haven't ignored anything, but have attempted to engage you in civil debate. Alas, you appear to be once again retreating into your mode of personal insult as a means of cutting off debate. That's fine, but it reflects ill on you, and makes me question whether you really understand the position you're taking.
But hey: just for the sake of civility, let's assume that I'm as ignorant as you seem to think I am. What's wrong with the statement I made?
Science is not totally dependent on repeatable experiments. That is only one method science uses to test data.
The fossil record is supported by experiments in dating etc., but there are few experiments you can do directly. The main factor in eliciting evidence for evolution from the fossil is forensics. Forensics are backed up by experiments. These support the analysis of the fossil data.
When different disciplines all correlate a conclusion, no experiment is necessary.
"Alas, you appear to be once again retreating into your mode of personal insult as a means of cutting off debate."
You really have nothing to debate. You offer no evidence to support design, because there is none.