This is just false. I have said nothing to lead you to believe I don't accept Newton's work, just for one. I can't imagine that Einstein for another would agree with much of anything you've ever said or thought about science. You no doubt agree with some fractured snippets quote-mined from his writings, but he would not agree with you on anything of substance. In particular, he did not use the word "God" in the way you probably assume, or hope that I will assume when you go get some quotes to wave around.
The problem is not letting thing be what they look like, because I am not saying these phenomena do not exist, I am saying that the evolutionist perspective always dictates the old universe scenario.
Precisely what I was talking about. Don't be so dense, OK? There's an Occam's Razor straightforward "just what it looks like" interpretation of the evidence and the pig-ignorant witch-doctor "This doesn't prove the great Oogety-Boogety didn't make it last Thursday" interpretation. You are relentlessly torturing your interpretation of any specific detail of the evidence. You make no effort to address all problems simultaneously with one consistent and plausible scenario. You don't give a rat's butt about science as a systematic investigation of nature. Your only concern is that it must not, must not, must not say things that upset the Great Oogety-Boogety.