itsahoot: "A technique employed by evolutionist for decades."
It's mostly a semantic difference -- "proof" is used in mathematical theorems and law courts, but not for scientific theories.
There experiments & observations falsify or fail to falsify hypotheses.
Failure to falsify does not "prove" a hypothesis, but it does help confirm it, and strong confirmations promote a hypothesis to an accepted theory, such as basic evolution.
That is the language & logic, such that "debates" over what is "proved" or "disproved" are pointless.
itsahoot: "By pointing to semantic arguments you hope to be able to avoid the whole discussion of fraudulent data that seems to point to the evolutionary theory as being accurate to the exclusion of all data to the contrary."
Of course nobody denies that scientists are as human as the rest of us, and sometimes make "mistakes" which support their preconceived ideas.
But in the past 150+ years data confirming basic evolution theory is, literally, mountainous while confirmed data falsifying it is, well, non-existent.
So now you wish to regale me with tales of hoaxes & cover-ups in the name of science?
My response is this: all you really need is just one fully researched, documented, peer-reviewed & published example of data irrefutably falsifying a theory and that theory gets demoted -- reduced in rank -- back to hypothesis.
As a hypothesis, it may get modified to account for your new data then resubmitted for re-confirmation as a modified theory.
And those kinds of things happen in science every day, including with some evolution ideas.
But basic evolution theory has stood the tests of time because, well, it's pretty basic:
Can those lead to speciation?
Well, they did with dogs from wolves, and any number of other domesticated animals.
So that much is fact, but long term must remain theory, since we were not there to see it happen.
itsahoot: "I suspect there is not one freeper here that does not know the difference between theory and fact, though they would have a hard time recognizing that when talking with evolutionists that regularly quote theory as fact."
I think your own posts show you enjoy word-games over what is "proved" or "fact" vs. hypothesis & theory.
Basic evolution is theory confirmed by many, many facts.
Global warming is a hoax and that is provable but Consensus claims to be the authority.
Just like evolution there is no criticism allowed it is settled science. Show me a school college or university that allows anyone to teach against global warming or evolution, they don't exist. Both opinions bear more resemblance to religion than science.
One does not have to even let Creation enter into the argument to disprove what is taught about evolution in schools today is inherently flawed. Of course the whole fight is with God not evidence.