[bobdsmith]

The experiements that can be re-created show the classical scientific process -- these are duplicatable, verifiable, and falsifiable. Outside of these experiments Evolution can make suppositions but no real theoretical assertions. IOW, if someone claims that two animals have a common ancestor because of similarities, this is merely a supposition, not a statement of provable fact.

The existance of neutrinos, etc are not theories, they are predictions of a theory. Evolution also makes predictions which can be tested, and which are repeatable and falsifiable. All scientific theories, historical or not, including evolution, are based on observations and then formulating theories to explain those observations. Theories are not provable, certainly not in an absolute sense of the word. In fact I would say that the term "scientific proof" in reference to theories is kind of misleading.

Interesting. I thought we were dealing with cold, hard, provable science. Now I realize by your admission that the Evos are not scientists, they are actually detectives

The past existance of the dinosaurs is based on "inference from circumstantial evidence". Is that not science?

[webstersII]

"Evolution also makes predictions which can be tested, and which are repeatable and falsifiable."

Transitional fossils. It's laughable to think that there would be a way to test/falsify those.

" The past existance of the dinosaurs is based on "inference from circumstantial evidence". Is that not science?"

It's science in the sense that what can be observed infers things. Dinosaur bones make obvious statements about creatures that lived in the past, their size, their teeth, the shape of their bones.

But there are all sorts of silly suppositions stated as fact where there really are no facts. Like the drawings of prehistoric creatures which show the type of skin or fur that they have. We had textbooks in school which showed drawings of what creatures looked like when there was no evidence for their outward appearance anywhere.