When will theists bring something new and fresh?

[fr0d0]

Proof can also be non verifiable, non transferable, personal. It's still proof, none the less.

False. No real scientist would agree with you. You would be laughed right out of the scientific community. Also, your false definition of proof would never even hold up in court.

Scientists hold up to exactly that standard and wouldn't be seen dead violating it. Have you not noticed scientists use the term "empirical"? That's how they differentiate between the different types of proof. If my definition is false then you're saying that they are all wrong too.

Of course it isn't the type of evidence useful in law. But then I never said it was. Perhaps you didn't read the other half of the definition posted earlier.