Science does not deal in "proof". Anyone that asks for proof is not a scientist....
That is absolute NONSENSE!
Are you saying that the mathematical proof needed in physics, engineering, quantitative chemistry, etc, etc.. is not science?
It's a hell of a lot more proof and true exact science than a bunch of conjectures, suppositions and strech of the imagination based on a few bones and some theory.
My facts have put a man on the moon, your "facts" for linking a whale and a hippo are "a similarity in DNA?"
You give me a link to a paper that repeatedly tells me that EVOLUTION IS A FACT and that anyone who doubts it is ignorant. BUT YOU DO NOT GIVE ME THE PROOF.
When I calculate something to be a pressure of 22.5psi. I can show you the math and the result is always 22.5psi, not 21 or not 23.
I was(politely)trying to tell you that you have not given me the proof that evolution is a fact. Repeating that some people believe that theory to be a fact does not make it so for me.
Please show me the math!
That's funny.
I've noticed that creationists and moon shot doubters use the same tactic. They pick at endless nits and imagined "holes" in the theory that we went to the moon, or that Evolution is true.
Both are based on spreading seeds of doubt, not affirmative evidence in their favor.
What creationists are looking for is "scientific" proof of God. That will never be found, and the Bible was the first document that claimed thus.
Yes, that's what we're saying. They are not, in any case, natural science.
A mathematical proof is only valid in the context of some formal system, such as Euclidean geometry, some particular flavor of set theory, etc. For such formal systems, although we may not know all the properties (otherwise there wouldn't be theoretical mathematicians) we do know the essential rules, indeed we define them.
But science is the study of nature. We don't know the rules of nature in advance. Proof is therefore impossible with respect to postulates about the natural world. If it were possible then there would be no point in constructing, testing and investigating scientific theories in the first place. If we were able to do "natural proofs" it would mean we already had correct and final scientific theories. It would mean that we understood nature as a "formal system".
You could even say that claiming such "proof" is possible is blasphemy, as it would put us, insofar as understanding, in the same position as God, the author of the universe's "formal system".
Please learn some science before you attempt to debate scientific questions. Precisely which theories, laws, etc. in physics, engineering or chemistry have been proven? Answer: None of them. Science can't prove anything. For example, most people think that gravity has been "proven." It has not. To prove the law of gravity, which is more correctly called the UNIVERSAL law of gravity, you would have to measure the attractive force between EVERY pair of objects in the entire universe. This is clearly impossible, so we can't say that this law is proven. What we can say is that there is a tremendous amount of evidence in favor of the law of gravity (in limited circumstances, relativity showed that the law of gravity is incomplete). It is not impossible that we could measure an attractive force between two objects that is NOT correctly described by the law of gravity. The same situation is applicable to EVERY law, theory or hypothesis in all of science.