[donh]

So what are you saying? Again: Since I don't think proof has much of anything to do with science, I incur no such obligation.

Kindly show me an example of a formal scientific proof in a natural science, and I will continue this charade. My statement is straightforward and easy to examine. Copies of "Nature" abound in every library. If you can cop an example of a formal proof in natural science, than I will revisit my contention--otherwise, my statement is straightforward, simple, and stands appallingly obviously on the available evidence: Natural science has little to no use for proofs--examine it as exhaustively as you like.

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker.

[Heartlander]

Look, does science attempt to ‘prove’ anything? If you do not believe so – well, that’s an interesting theory…

Beyond that, (natural science) what is your ‘theory’ in regards to why a tree is not a rock.

Natural science has little to no use for proofs--examine it as exhaustively as you like.