Gross, terrible misrepresentation of what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is basically an idea in science that has so much evidence, so much predictive power, and a ridiculously high degree of accuracy, that's deemed worthly of reaching the level of "theory" in science. Theory does not have the same definition in science as it does in every say language, just google scientific theory instead of theory if you want the same definition/explanation of what a theory is. 

Also, stating that evolution cannot be proven is just ignorance. We see evolution happen every day, we've observed speciation, we've created and modified existing bacteria and viruses through mutation. We KNOW evolution is a fact. It's not even a freakin' debate among respectable scientists. The only thing debated in evolution is common ancesntry, and this is overwhelmingly religious groups/people questioning, most who have absolutely no understanding of evolution, or simply choose to be ignorant on the subject. 

So in all, his question does make sense, your concept of what a theory and what evolution is, on the other hand, does not. I'm pretty sure all man-made gods are fake, and if there is a god, it's almost certainly going to be a god no one has ever thought of or even met. 

Proof =/= Evidence. Proof is a mathematical concept while evidence is scientific. We are AWARE that evolution occurs, and we've tested it a billion times with evidence that supports this theory. I agree that Evolution occurs, but it is still a scientific theory where one cannot claim "evolution is a proven fact". His question NOW makes sense after he changed his title, but originally he asked to simply "prove evolution", which by definition is not possible because almost all scientific theories don't prove anything.

Proof =/= Evidence. Proof is a mathematical concept while evidence is scientific. We are AWARE that evolution occurs, and we've tested it a billion times with evidence that supports this theory. I agree that Evolution occurs, but it is still a scientific theory where one cannot claim "evolution is a proven fact". His question NOW makes sense after he changed his title, but originally he asked to simply "prove evolution", which by definition is not possible because almost all scientific theories don't prove anything.

Well there is one part of evolution that is true...I forget what exactly it is but it has to do with different breeds mating and creating slightly different breeds of the same kind of animal.

But the rest of evolution takes as much faith to believe in as it takes to believe in Creation or whatever other theory people happen to believe in.

This is the kind of logic that people use to disregard anything they can.  "There are no absolutes" logic is the same kind of argument I've seen child molesters use to excuse themselves from their actions "Well 17 is no different than 18, logically, and 16 is just another step from there..." I've actually sat there and listened to a person try to philisophically justify that kind of action by saying there are no absolutes. 

Which is the same thing that's happening here..."Nothing is proven" may be technically true, but how much evidence do you need to be convinced of something?  How many supporting facts do you need?  what's the positive to negative ratio in which something is considered proven?  I'm sorry, but I'm not buying into this "nothing is proven" deal.  Yes, we may be wrong, but until we find evidence to the contrary (substantial evidence), it's a VERY fair assumption that something is proven.  

I don't know where I was going with this, it's late and I worked all day. 

Im glad we agree evolution happens, but proof is NOT a purely mathematical concept. Mathematical proofing is, by definition, a strictly mathematical concept. On the other hand, proof, as in, sufficient evidence to clear any reasonable doubt is not a mathematical concept. Science uses both proofing concepts. If you're going to talk about proof, and then use math as an example, then use the correct term "mathematical proofing"; Wikipedia has a good article on it.

You're pretty much expanding on what I'm saying. Yes, evolution does exist, we have sufficient enough evidence to confidently say that evolution indeed does occur. But scientifically, we cannot say that evolution is PROVEN, even though there isn't anything besides creationists philosophy that says otherwise. I was simply commenting on his original thread title "prove evolution" because you cannot make that statement in a scientific setting. Evolution DOES occur, but one cannot say that he/she has PROVEN evolution. I'm nitpicking but I've had this discussion with my Biology professors and they tell me not to use the word "prove" in almost anything related to scientific theories.

The point I was trying to make is that you're arguing semantics. The intimate details of whether something is 'proven' or not is irrelevant, you're wasting your time arguing over a meaning of a word instead of actually debating the point at hand.