Major problem here. Any fossil record is compatible with creation. Only one fossil record -- the one we find -- is compatible with evolution. Big difference. That's why we say that evolution is a scientific theory, and creationism is not.
When VadeRetro says evolution "seems" to have happened - what is it that makes that statement scientific, but if I say it "seems" to me that it didn't, I am fool who has not done my work?
Frankly ... yes. And to remove any possible bias regarding evolution, I'll use an example from another science (criminology) which also "reconstructs" (attempts to explain) past events by examining evidence. The reasoning process for each science is the same -- you look at all the available clues, examine them with the best technology possible, and then put together a plausable, comprehensible, cause-and-effect scenario (a theory) for what happened in order to leave such clues for us to observe. Consider:
When we look at the evidence and say that OJ seems to have killed Nichole, that is a scientific statement. If you look at the same evidence and say it "seems" to you that he didn't, then yes ... using your words, you are a fool who has not done his work.
Dismissing God is an option, but it is not a scientific one. People's philosphies and experiences are what direct and shape the way that they perceive the data, connect the dots, and come to conclusions.
Science is limited to dealing with observable phenomena. "Dismissing God" is therefore most definitely a scientific option, where: (1) the proponents of this deity have no verifiable evidence; and (2) there is no conceivable way to test such an option. (Recall, in this context, that I pointed out how creationism fits any fossil record.) Yes, people's unique lives will shape their conclusions. That's why some people are better at this kind of thing than others. Rational conclusions can be tested. If someone's experiences and philosophy cause him to connect the dots and come up with something he calls a conclusion (the Martians killed Nichole) which can't be tested, which has no evidence, etc., then yes, he's got his unique way of looking at things, but we are entirely justified in disregarding his views.
Is the wind blowing outside my window a result of the purely natural effects of atmosphere and climate or is there a God who is creating it? Either, or both - but looking at the data alone will not tell you.
Right. Because the "wind god" is invisible, can't be tested, never reveals himself, etc. The Greeks believed that every tree had a nymph, every brook a naiad. In your way of thinking (if I read you wrong, please correct me, but I'm using your words) the data alone will not tell you. So where does that leave you? Do you regard nymphs and naiads to be scientific possibilities? For me, until I see verifiable evidence of a nymph or a naiad, I shall disegard them.