[xenophiles]

>There is no absolute scientific proof that evolution occurs...

There is a mountain of evidence supporting evolution...

You missed an important point, Non-Sequitur: "absolute scientific proof" is not a phrase that scientists use, it's an imaginary standard that creationists apply to theories they don't like. (Mere evidence is good enough for theories they do like, and popularity for their non-scientific ideas.)

It's hard to imagine what "absolute scientific proof" would be -- it's almost an oxymoron -- but here are a few other theories that can't clear that hurdle:

The germ theory of disease; there are strong correlations, but no real proof (and besides, some diseases aren't correlated with microbes, so there). The theory that stars are suns and the sun is a star; circumstantial evidence, no proof (and besides, some stars are different colors, so we can fuss with the definitions). The Round Earth Theory; LOTS of evidence but no absolute proof, it could be an illusion, we can refuse to understand the evidence, we can refuse to believe travellers' accounts. The theory that all human beings are mortal; massive inductive reasoning does not constitute proof.

If you have time on your hands you can play with the "my theory's been around a long time and many people still believe it" standard. Astrology anyone?

[aruanan]

The germ theory of disease; there are strong correlations, but no real proof (and besides, some diseases aren't correlated with microbes, so there). The theory that stars are suns and the sun is a star; circumstantial evidence, no proof (and besides, some stars are different colors, so we can fuss with the definitions). The Round Earth Theory; LOTS of evidence but no absolute proof, it could be an illusion, we can refuse to understand the evidence, we can refuse to believe travellers' accounts. The theory that all human beings are mortal; massive inductive reasoning does not constitute proof.

Pretty weak.