Plenty of creationists have done scientific experiments using scientific methods.
Perhaps. And where they have, those findings can be part of science. But I can't think of a single modern example of what you refer to.
The whole argument is over how we interpret data.
You say that as though all interpretations are equally valid.
You cannot just accuse a creationist of being a non-scientist.
If a creationist is trying to offer dogma and assertion as science, then I can and will make that accusation.
I know plenty who write valid technical papers with scientifically proven results.
On the subject of creationism? I find that rather hard to believe. Perhaps we might explore specific examples in another thread.
What we take issue with is that you say your results lend support to your evolutionary theory.
And to the degree that your issues are grounded in scientific methodology, they are valid. But I've been studying this issue for almost 4 years, and I've yet to encounter a single scientifically valid criticism of evolution, or any scientifically valid evidence for creation, or even a scientifically valid hypothesis from creationism itself.
We do not even argue that we should be expected to hold to them.
You may not, but a number of your peers do, and are, even in this thread. That's a common creationist objection; even if you don't agree with it it's quite disingenuous to pretend that the objection is never made. It is, and often.
. You are calling us non-scientists because of our subjective interpretation of data though.
I'm calling you non-scientists because you don't interpret your data through the scientific method. It really is just that simple.
Their is nothing that makes macro-evolutionary theory scientifically provable..
Except, of course, for the evidence for it, which is vast and leigion.
™ Version 4.2