The problem, Caly, is that you want to say, "God did it," but you can't say it. Everything you have shown, all your pictures and all you've said are always underlined with that explanation. And that's probably what frustrates you.
You are trying to argue the naturalistic explanations behind science, and that's great, but you are arguing with incomplete facts. You pick a snippet here and there in an effort to back up your ideas without looking at the alternative explanations for what you have presented. You started with the conclusion, "God did it," and worked backwards to reach the premise, which is also "God did it." And that's frustrating, I know. After all, in your mind the evidence matches perfectly.
But that's the point we're trying to make. You began with the conclusion without first proving the premise. We can't accept the premise unless you can prove it, and you can't prove it, at least, not to us. To yourself you may have all sorts of evidence that you consider definitive, but to us, it is all subjective.
That's why you feel frustrated and you have every right to be. But you have to understand, Caly, that we want to understand your position, but we want to understand it through science. That's why we can't accept your conclusion that God did it - it's because science says that there is a natural explanation for everything that happens in the world around us. We may not know what it is, but there is one. What you need to do is show how science is wrong without resorting to your conclusion and that requires a lot more research and looking at sites that, frankly, you may not be comfortable looking at.
If you can do explain why the laminin can have no natural explanation for being the way it is, if you can disprove any natural explanation of science as wrong and a supernaturalistic explanation as right, then we can have a proper discussion.
Otherwise, showing pictures and saying "God did it, can't you see?" does nothing to advance the debate.