Just a reminder to help in keeping our arguments valid: PROOFS belong to the field of mathematics. The scientific method, on the other hand, is a means of testing hypotheses, which are either "rejected" or "not rejected" during data analysis; science, strictly applied, is used to disprove statements of reality, never to prove them. The null hypothesis is a statement of what is generally believed to be true, but when it is NOT rejected in favor of an alternative hypothesis, there is always still room to test the probability of its accuracy against other, future alternative hypotheses. It is always incorrect to refer to "scientific proof" in the positive. One can correctly say, "there is no scientific proof", but this just fills a space better left empty with a meaningless statement that is ALWAYS true.
To many people, granted, this is all obvious, but science is important to people from other professions and walks of life as well. It is one of our greatest powers as a species when we use it correctly, but its results can also be used incorrectly to great detriment, if we do not pay careful attention to logic, our wording, and to the appropriate use of the tools at our disposal.










