[MrB]

Quite persistant in proving my point, aren’t you?

Funny, though...
I’ll infer that you’re trying to prove some point that anything that can’t be tested with the scientific method of observation, forming an hypothesis, then proving that hypothesis through experiments that repeatedly show the conclusion,

must be “faith based” and therefore completely dismissable,

your faith based religion of macro-evolution falls right into that concept, because macro-evolution can’t be repeatedly proven through experimentation. Not even once.

[ketsu]

Quite persistant in proving my point, aren’t you?

Funny, though... I’ll infer that you’re trying to prove some point that anything that can’t be tested with the scientific method of observation, forming an hypothesis, then proving that hypothesis through experiments that repeatedly show the conclusion,

must be “faith based” and therefore completely dismissable,

your faith based religion of macro-evolution falls right into that concept, because macro-evolution can’t be repeatedly proven through experimentation. Not even once.

You finally said it! Here's why you're ignorant of the scientific method(and why I've been waiting for you to make a fool of yourself the whole time). The scientific method only requires *lack of a counterexample* when testing a hypothesis. If scientists held your shall we say "interesting" views on the scientific method, plenty of sciences, especially theoretical Physics would fall completely apart.

Remember Luminiferous aether?