[Stultis]

Hey, all I wanted to know is if Darwinians think that "the earth revolves around the sun" has been proven yet. Judging from the response, it seems that they believe it has not been proven, nor will it ever be.

Quite correct, as I argued for you in message #122:

there are no arguments or observations that entail with logical necessity that the Heliocentric Theory is true... [T]he evidence for the heliocentric theory is very, very, very strong, such that it is perverse to deny it confident, if formally tentative, assent. But a very, very, very strong case is not the same as a "proof". A proof is a demonstration that a proposition is not merely irrefutable as a practical matter, or on the basis of present knowledge, but rather that it must be true, regardless of any possible future discoveries. NO scientific claim has this characteristic. ALL scientific claims are subject to revision, replacement or abandonment as may be required by future discoveries, or the creation of stronger theories.

What do you disagree with above? Do you think, along with gore3000, that some scientific theories (such as the heliocentric theory) should be stamped as "proved" and thereby exempted from the otherwise universal requirement that that theories remain vulnerable to the results of continuing investigation of nature?

You creationists need to work on your talking points. On the one hand you whine about being the victims of supposed scientific dogmatism, and on the other hand you are working hard to assert a (invalid) philosophical basis for scientific dogmatism with this false notion that scientific theories are "proven".

[BMCDA]

I think the problem with "proven" is its use in the vernacular where it means that something has been demonstrated to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence all the confusion with this word (the same is also the case with "theory").
But in a strict scientific sense no theory will ever be proven (but you already said that in #65).

[gore3000]

What you need to do is cut the rhetoric, the sophistry and the misrepresentations. I have asked you for facts supporting the theory of evolution and all you give is a long discussion on the meaning of the word "is" and the meaning of the word "alone". You clearly are being deceitful and trying to cover up the fact that there is absolutely no scientific proof of evolution, none at all. I have told you several times how scientific theories give proof: by experiments, by formulas which can be tested, by applying the theories to everyday problems and many other ways. You continue to fail to give the proofs which other scientific theories certainly do give. So it is time to stop the rhetoric. It is time to stop the sophistry. It is time for you to back up your claims that evolution is science.