Tangible, verifiable, and substantive evidence tangible, verifiable, and substantive evidence?

Because they don't understand the scientific process when it comes to investigating spiritual claims. Science can only measure (observe, experiment on) those things to which it has direct physical access. Science doesn't have direct access to the supernatural.

The only way for science to investigate supernatural claims is through modeling. However, consistency between the evidence and the model can only ever equate to confidence in the model - never verification of the original hypothesis (that would be "Affirming the Consequent" - logical fallacy). So through modeling, evidence can be used to support supernatural claims, but can never logically qualify as "irrefutable".

So to request "irrefutable" evidence of supernatural claims is irrational. PS. Science also lacks direct access to the past.

The same modeling approach is also necessary to test past claims such as Evolution theory and Big Bang theory. "Affirming the Consequent" is common practice when it comes to these theories in particular.

Dear Iranian, Please put down the thesaurus and realize that that the first 3 give us a definite answer. The rest of them, (excluding conclusive, which should be with the first 3) are a matter of faith, and give no specific answer.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.