Theories however can be supported via the facts and experimentation. That doesn't mean that they go into the realm of Proofs. (A proof is 'evidence that establishes the truth of something') They only become proofs when they are proven by the facts. Facts in and of themselves prove nothing. In the absence of a theory linking them, facts are quite meaningless.
Your statement, "A proof is 'evidence that establishes the truth of something,'is nonsense. You've merely stated that a proof is a type evidence. That's wrong.
"They only become proofs when they are proven by the facts." What is the antecedent for "they" in your last sentence? The context implies it's "theories," which would mean you're contradicting yourself. The only thing that is clear in your first paragraph is that you don't know what you're talking about.
I have yet to see a single fact that supports evolution, period.
In that, you would appear to be like the Senate Democrats who saw no evidence of Bill Clinton's perjury.
Every so call[sic] "fact" supporting evolution relies on the viewer/reviewer to infer the result, not very good scientific practice.
Your above statements demonstrate beyond any doubt that you're no scientist.
Please read Websters New World Compact Dictionary, page 363, bottom right side of the page.
Proof is 'evidence that establishes the truth of something" It's the 1st definition of the word and copied verbatim. If you disagree, perhaps you should write Webster and tell them they have no idea what they are talking about.
Perhaps before you accuse someone of not knowing what they are talking about you should look up their proofs/definitions before you prove to everyone else reading your response that the exact opposite is true.
you wrote: "Your above statements demonstrate beyond any doubt that you're no scientist." So the 26 years I've been working in the scientific field and being rewarded for those efforts, with several outstanding contribution awards, were all a fraud simply because you don't know the real definition of the word proof? Stop the presses, "Gumlegs" says anyone who require proof is not a real scientists.
I ask you for facts and like all evolutionist you answer the request by trying to divert the argument. For your small weak mind, the Clinton Democrats "IGNORED" facts. Evolutionist, such as yourself, rely on theories not facts. So let's stop and get off the personal attacks and actually get back to the point at hand and my original post.
Please post / list one "FACT" that supports evolution. Not something that can be inferred, fact. If its just a theory (as all the information available today so states) then the schools and evolutionist should stop referring to it as fact and call it a theory. It as plain and simple as that.