No, the point was that you claim to be able to 'test' something that may not be there because you claim to be able to 'quantitate' from 'evidence' when what you are really doing is extrapolating based on a philosophy.
"And simply rejecting the huge body of evidence supporting "macro" evolution because you think that evolution is proof-positive that God does not exist and you don't want to believe that God doesn't exist is not a valid argument."
So now you claim to know that I "think that evolution is proof-positive that God does not exist and you don't want to believe that God doesn't exist is not a valid argument." Not even an original strawman but entirely fallacious nonetheless.
"If you want to address the actual evidence, and you can offer a scientifically-sound, hypothesis-driven alternate theory, by all means, feel free to do so."
Again... the 'evidence' is simply philosophy masquerading as 'science'.
"I should also point out that just because a science is primarily observation based, and not controlled-experiment based, does not make the science invalid. I already discussed this."
And I already pointed out that extrapolating observations into unobservable, assumed events is not science but philosophy.
"As far as extrapolating goes, that is a perfectly valid method of advancing science. In order to extrapolate, one must make certain assumptions which one believes are supported by the data. Those assumptions can be tested."
So how does one test extrapolations made back into unobserved time and unobservable assumed events?
Obviously, you have absolutely no understanding of how the scientific method works, and no desire to learn how it works. I included a link to an explanation of it, even though I think that trying to describe it to you is a waste of time.
So now you claim to know that I "think that evolution is proof-positive that God does not exist and you don't want to believe that God doesn't exist is not a valid argument." Not even an original strawman but entirely fallacious nonetheless.
All anti-scientists have a motivation. That is the only motivation that makes sense within the context of creationism-based anti-science. If you didn't feel that scientific fact is a threat to your religion, you wouldn't be arguing so strenuously against it.
And I already pointed out that extrapolating observations into unobservable, assumed events is not science but philosophy.
If logical deductions are not a valid part of scientific method, then not only must we throw away science, but we should ditch criminal law, as well. People make extrapolations about the most likely sequence of events all the time, without direct observation. Fact of life: we cannot observe every process at all times. Logical deduction =/= philosophy.
So how does one test extrapolations made back into unobserved time and unobservable assumed events?
You mean, like testing the supposition that events outlined in Genesis actually took place as described--that circa 6000 years ago, God spoke and the entire universe sprang into existence? That God spoke again, and all of the plants and animals sprang fully formed from the soil? That God took a bit more of the soil and formed a man, and took a rib from that man to make his nearly identical twin sister? Please, you tell me, because I have no idea.