Science is False

Actually, I realized something. Pro's not going to take any evidence I throw at him. So instead of purely defending my position of "Science is true", I'll be briefly saying things about why the points Pro provided me with are not theoretical. Not using science, but, if possible, with reasoning. Arguments: Dinosaurs; When you think about it, this feels like something a Creationist would come up with to try to disprove evolution. There is proof of dinosaurs existing: fossils. Pro: "But they faked fossils! Dinosaurs don't exist!" Thanks, I'll get to that right now! I'm pretty sure archeologists exist, who actually dig up fossils. REAL fossils. Pro: "But you didn't dig up any fossils!" I haven't dug up fossils, and I'm not planning to. BUT! That DOES NOT MEAN fossils don't exist. (Sorry if I'm offending Pro, but I bet objecting to his Round 4 objections. Just to get that out of the way.) Space Travel: NASA's currently trying to get to Mars's surface. They're using slimmer space suits to walk around easier as well, but they could only fit it to women. I have seen a video some time ago about this, so I know the suits exist. Pro: "But you've never been to Mars!" I'm not an astronaut. If the voters want to find a link, please do. Atoms: Pro states that atoms are theoretical. That they have never been observed. I beg to -- Pro: "You never saw one!" I will get to that point later. I could spend a lot of money for a very expensive microscope and look at a penny to see it's protons and neutrons, but I'm not rich! And plus, I trust authority enough to -- Pro: "They get paid to lie!" Sorry if I'm making you seem annoying, but it just... THAT POINT you're using. I'll get to that much later. Time Travel and Teleportation: I agree with you. Time travel and teleportation are science FICTION. I have never said anything about time travelling and teleporting existing. Pro: "You conceded!" I did not concede, actually. Fictional TV shows like the idea of time travel, so they put it in said shows. We are not inclined to believe in those, time travel is just a cool idea in science fiction. Big Bang: I'm pretty sure the Big Bang is indeed just a hypothesis. Without being in Futurama, we will never know the story of the beginning of the world. And now for my long awaited rebuttal! Pro's 1st idea: "I have never seen it." A majority of Pro's entire argument is "I have not seen it, therefore it might not be true". I haven't seen the results of this debate yet, but I know for a fact that you're not going to forfeit Round 4. I know for a fact Markiplier posts videos, even tough I haven't snuck into his house. Pro is committing a logical fallacy. The fallacy is that because I haven't seen something directly, therefore science may not be true. I know this connects directly to the 2nd idea, I'll show this now. Pro's 2nd idea: "The government lies" Prove it. Show me proof of the government deceiving us. Why make up science at all? It's actually what is allowing me to type up my argument to you. Science is why we have airplanes. Science is why [insert anything science has done to improve daily life]! If science benefits life, why, even how, would the government lie about science? Pro's (possibly unintentional) error: "Science may or may not be real" You say that science may not be true. "May not"? I asked you to disprove science. You responded with "The scientists may or may not have actually done the research", "Atoms remain 100% theoretical", "Saying a stone arrow head is 10 000 years old. there is zero foundation to come to that conclusion". Science "may" exist. That is the problem here. You claimed dinosaurs "may not" have existed. You haven't fulfilled your BoP yet. Prove dinosaurs existing is IMPOSSIBLE! It's nice that I may have been deceived, but have I? You provided only the possibility of the government lying, but not the proof. Good luck.