Of course they do. When you gonorrhea and penicillin takes the illness away that is scientific proof of the effectiveness of penicillin. The proofs of science are numerous and are repeatable, and can be built upon to make new discoveries and find proofs of more things. This is how science works and how science advances human knowledge. Not even the skeptic/atheist Hume dared to question this. That evolutionists cavalierly state such an absurdity shows their utter desperation in the face of scientific facts which completely refute their nonsensical theory.
Until resistant strains render penicillin ineffective, of course.
The proofs of science are numerous and are repeatable
The DEMONSTRATIONS are numerous and repeatable, and all are potentially fallable. Proofs are not fallable, in a conventional sense. Show me an example of an infallable proof in natural science.
, and can be built upon to make new discoveries and find proofs of more things.
This is how induction works...it is NOT how rigorous proofs work.
This is how science works and how science advances human knowledge.
Correct, however, this does not make anything a proof.
Not even the skeptic/atheist Hume dared to question this.
Indeed--what he questioned, correctly, was the absurd notion of infallible proofs in natural sciences, or, indeed, anywhere.
That evolutionists cavalierly state such an absurdity shows their utter desperation in the face of scientific facts which completely refute their nonsensical theory.
What it shows is that evolutionary scientists share the philosophical notions about science that nearly all currently active scientists presently hold.