Nothing in science is ever proven

No problem. I'm a sucker for a good "brain-bender" kind of debate. Thanks for posting it. (I do apologize, however, I'm not quite familiar with the meaning of C's and P's. I'm assuming C is "constructive"?) RC1 (or "in response to C1") It appears my opponent and I have had a miscommunication of sorts. The resolution says that nothing in science is ever proven. I, as affirmative, am affirming the resolution. So, I am affirming that nothing is proven in science. However, there are other ways of proving things, yes. These methods, however, are not scientific. Take history, for example. There's no amount of tests you may scientifically run that will prove that Abraham Lincoln existed. However, we can use written record, memorabilia, and testimony to all prove historically that Lincoln did indeed exist. But science, forever the skeptic, will always point out that it COULD, just maybe, all be a fabrication. This leads me into my second response. RC2. This is how things can only be DISPROVED in science. I can hypothesize that "bears can only produce baby bears". And so long as that's true, I can believe that's fact. But as soon as that bear gives birth to a lizard, science has proven my statement to be false. There is still such a thing as truth in science, it just can't be proven. RP1. This is why we must prove theories false. Yes, as my opponent sated, certain theories contradict each other. Naturally, they can not both exist. But until one is disproved, we don't know which. Science may not be able to prove which one is right, but it can prove all the other ones we've thought of so far are wrong! It's a real "stick in the mud" like that. As for our judicial system, you are forgetting that, in order to "prove", we must remove all reasonable doubt. One doubt is that there could be any other suspects. All other reasonable suspects must present evidence stating that they were, without a doubt, not involved with the crime. If they all provide evidence that proves innocence (or in this case, falsehood) then they are dismissed. The thing is, while trials can't keep going on forever until we've proven who the culprit is beyond ANY doubt (not just reasonable) science isn't confined by the parameters of swift justice and society. At any time, a new theory (or suspect) could take the place of the old. Or, as often happens, multiple "supsects" will be investigated at once. So in one way, the comparison to the judicial system my opponent brought up shows us that scientific theory is the same as being "innocent until proven guilty". However, we can not fully expect it to line up because science can't be confined. RP2. Scientific theory will be proven false when another theory is proven true. It will not "change" as my opponent puts it. New theories will be based off it. They may adopt the same name. They may resemble it in all but the most minute detail. But the Scientific theory, if proven false, will be false forever. Just because my theory that "bears only give birth to bears" didn't work out, doesn't mean that it can become true again if I adapt it to allow the use of "bears can only give birth to bears and lizards". No. The theory which stated that bears could ONLY give birth to bears was false. And will forever be branded false from the day it was proven so, scientifically. And it is because it can only be proven false that we can assume it is true. We can't prove it. But we can assume it. I remind everyone, nothing in science is ever proven. Science will forever be a skeptic. Thank you. It is for all these reasons I'd urge an affirmative ballot.