***Can the past be scientifically proven? Since no one was there, and it can not be repeated and observed, can theories of the past be scientifically proven? I do not think they can.***

What is it about the past that precludes 'knowing' in the scientific sense? Remember, it is just another unobservable (like what happens inside of stars, like what happens at subatomic levels, like what happens in the unobservable reaches of any scientific theory). If we make unobservables out of reach to scientific conclusions, then we disable almost all of science. Scientific theories predict too many unobservable phenomena in order to be confirmed.

I think you want to pick and choose what science can discuss with confidence. If you choose all unobservables as to throw out, then you should throw out the whole of atomic physics. At some point in theoretical discussions you cannot observe phenomena. You must look for 'kickable' observables that you infer to mean that the unobservable is real.

***I'll present my arguement another way, because we are getting nowhere with this one.***

I disagree. I think the problem is that you conceive of unobservables as a means to disable evolutionary theory, but you cannot do so without disabling all of science.

Harv