>"My dad recently read a book on the philosophy of science and read some excerpts to me."
This is part of what's wrong with Creationism. It teaches the concept of Argument from Authority ... saying "it says in this (unnamed) book what science is" ... and this is supposed to add credibility to the rest of your argument.
If you could give the title and author, at least we could check that the "excerpts" he is reading you are not leaving some VERY important things out.
>"It said that for something to be science it hast to be recordable, testable and repeatable."
But this is obviously wrong ... if you just think about it for a half a second.
Example: We think that the craters on the moon were caused by meteors. And yet a meteor striking the moon has never been directly observed. It is not "recordable, testable, or repeatable". Does that make it "not science"? Do we simply conclude that the moon was made in its current, pockmarked form, by the Creator?
There are many branches of science that deal with things that are very large, very distant, and very old. From cosmology, to astronomy, astrophysics, geology, paleontology, archaeology, etc. And these all study phenomena that are themselves not directly "recordable, testable, or repeatable."
So to dismiss them all with a wave of the hand as "not science" ... only illustrates a very narrow understanding of what science is.
Here's the key: It is OBSERVATIONS that need to be "recordable, testable, repeatable."
And evolution IS supported by OBSERVATIONS that are "recordable, testable, repeatable". From the discovery of fossils, to DNA and genetic patterns, to the structures of proteins and other bio-molecules, to the development of embryos, to patterns in anatomy and structure, and on and on.
This is why evolution IS science.
But the bigger point is that your example of the ball dropping 5000 times is very good.
But then you fail to grasp what it means!
It shows that NOTHING IS EVER "PROVED" IN SCIENCE. Nothing. EVER. EVER. EVER.
Not even "facts". There is NO SUCH THING as a "proven fact" in science. Facts are *OBSERVED* to be true ... not "proven" to be true.
That is precisely what makes science so strong. Because NOTHING is ever considered "proven" beyond question. Gravity, atoms, molecules, cell theory, germ theory, the theory that the earth goes around the sun. NOTHING. It is all just explanations for the observations we see. And ALL of them are considered only as "true" as our current observations about the world. A fact could appear tomorrow that disproves all of them. Then we will sit down and re-examine all those theories. That is what makes good science.
The problem with Creationism is that teaches you to look at evolution first, and then to understand "science" in a way that makes evolution look uncertain.
Instead, you should be learning about *science* first, and THEN applying its concepts to evolution.
If you did so, you would realize that the concept of evolution is accepted by the world's scientific community using exactly the same techniques and thought processes as the sciences of archaeology, geology, and even astronomy and astrophysics.
This is important.
Don't let the religious campaign to undermine the teaching and understanding of evolution ... undermine your entire understanding of how SCIENCE works.
This is important.