[gore3000]

This is NOT skepticism.

Of course it is. Denying that anything can be proven is even more than the definition of skeptic requires:

skep·tic also scep·tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skptk) n.
1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.

BTW - you cannot say that evolution is a proven fact and also say that nothing can be proven.

[Stultis]

Of course it is. Denying that anything can be proven is even more than the definition of skeptic requires:

skep·tic also scep·tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skptk) n.
1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.

It is YOUR intellectual fetish to hold that "generally accepted conclusions" must (or should) be "proven," not mine (or Popper's).

BTW - you cannot say that evolution is a proven fact and also say that nothing can be proven.

But I don't say "that evolution is a proven fact". In fact, in a message addressed to you, #2404, only a few previous to the one you are here responding to, I said the following:

BTW I don't consider evolution to be a "scientific fact," but then neither is heliocentrism.

Nor do I claim that "nothing can be proven". I claim thta propositions about the natural world cannot be "proven" (in the sense of demonstrated with certainty).

I've really tried to be clear on all this, but what am I to do if you reply without reading or comprehending what I've written?