I don't think there is anybody here from the "creation science" crowd. The topic at hand is whether or not observation is the same thing as experimentation - the evidence proves the two terms do not have the same meaning. This stems from the statement: show us a repeatable experiment that support evolution between species. The problem is you can't create a repeatable experiment that demonstrates evolution between species so the evo-reactionaries had to go off on the nonsense rant about observation is the same thing as experimentation - when that fizzled out, PatrickHenry made the false claim that somebody believes that unless it can be recreated in the lab, it is not accepted. This is utter nonsense.
This statement is clearly irrelevant without the implicit assertion that only a "repeatable experiment" is an acceptable form of evidence for a scientific theory. That assertion has been cut to ribbons. Ergo, this statement is irrelevant. QED