I am sorry I should have been much more clear (wow). Facts that prove a position.
You just don't get it do you? My statement was constructive on two levels and both seem to have gone over your head.
scientific method n. The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.
There is a conclusion that validates a theory, moving the theory out of the realm of thought and into fact. You forgetting or ignoring that step does not remove it from the process.
Get a clue - the use of the word "proof" is not scientific.
Allow me to point out that arguing from a position with no attendant facts produces no useful conclusions. Got any facts to offer, dumbass?