How to prove Darwin's existence by using a demonstration?

" I don't have to prove Darwin's existence" is just an excuses dude because you can't and its not compatible method to prove anything including Darwin and God so you came up with 'common knowledge' to replace that is it??!

Discovery is just a part of ways to extract and understand the truth and reality ..same with demonstration it can't prove everything and yet it's gonna repeated the same event by copied the original event ..we can't put the real big bang in the lab right? So we need the artificial event to proof the theory .. discovery was engage if we found there's the possibilities to be discovered ..if not the theory is just the theory and there's nothing to proved .. religion can't be rediscovered but it can be returned..it's already happened before .. again you came up the demonstration methodology

..the results doesn't always be permanently forever and relevant especially when the new variables was engaged so the result gonna change of course and considered as the new discoveries..God is already part of knowledge and studies even for any myth .. even it was not to believe but it's already part of our culture and its impossible to be abolished completely ..I don't care what's is called or you accusing mine argument doesn't help or illogical false argument etc caused it's not gonna help you to rebute my argument either

 ..if you just playing with term and names I can't see the different between you in the theist coz generally they also give such names towards the Atheist to make it sounds really bad ..yeah it does retarded when you asking me to prove the existence of God by using the DEMONSTRATION ..and I don't care what you think upon me cause I was in the process of learning and studying how you bring your argument and rebute my views

..I wanna see if you much better or not from the theist in the disscussion and handles such questions or any you can think of .. whatever you called inventing the answer etc .. that's the problems when you were blindly believed that religion doesn't have knowledge so if religion was really like that so religion can be studied even amongst the highest level of education including the Atheist

 ..the data that's empirical for the evidence for God does exist but on its own verification, observations etc according to its proper method .. even you can't prove the existence of Darwin by using the demonstration and rely on the other methods and ways etc such as record etc..

show me if you really can just like you demand to show me the existence of God by using that method ..yes you finally realised the method that you asked was retarded and useless to be applied to prove existence and you used the another methods instead .
I felt the same when you asking me to prove the existence of God by your methods but when I ask you to use the same way then you can't and using another ways to prove that ..you also had the same syndrome