Nothing in science is ever proven

If you request in the next round, in the interest of balance, I will skip the final round. All I will post is the following: "No arguments will be posted this round, as requested". (And some formalities, if you allow me) If not, I will take that final opportunity to refute your final arguments. But first, on to your current ones... C1. The shift of focus in our debate has transferred, it would appear! I must now show the difference between scientific fact and fact in itself. Science, as we have defined it, is "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.". This is, in the real world, called "Scientific Method". I will provide a link detailing this process in full. http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu... Basically, there are four stages. The Question. "What do bears produce?" The Hypothesis. "Bears produce bears." The Testing. (In our analogy, revealing that bears also give birth to lizards). The Analysis. Our Hypothesis was wrong. We make a new one. You see, by this method, we can never prove something to be true. Why? Because even if we only ever observed baby bears being produced, we can not guarantee (with science) that they will only ever produce baby bears. So, to try and apply it to Abraham Lincoln. Does/did Abraham Lincoln exist? In order to use scientific method, we must transport ourselves back to the time in which he was living (science can only apply to current reality, after all). We'll go back to Novermber 19th, 1863. Now, we must test our theory. We know that existing things can often be poked with a stick. Our hypothesis. "Abraham Lincoln can be poked by a stick." So, before he can get his "four score" out of his mouth, we've jabbed him in the rib-cage with a branch. This is our test. We do it several times, just to be sure. Now we analyze. Our hypothesis held true DURING TESTING. However, science couldn't guarantee we would always be able to poke him with a stick. Nothing could. There is absolutely no guarantee, however many times you do something and get the same result, that it will hold true the next time you do it. This is where we are left. History, having other people write in the books about good 'ole Honest Abe, is what gives us proof of Lincoln's existence. However, scientifically, it can't be proven. You can not provide overwhelming evidence, and claim it as a scientific fact. There is no guarantee that someday, gravity will not apply to a certain object. Is it likely? No. Do we have any reason to believe that gravity won't apply to a single object? No. But can we prove it won't happen? Nope. C2. I'm sorry for any confusion. I was saying that your theory 1) could be assumed correct. And 2) could, in fact, be correct. However, as I stated earlier, even if it's correct, it doesn't mean you've scientifically proven it is. C3. And as I've stated, scientific truth doesn't exist. Truth does. Scientific method, science, and false hypotheses do. But like I said earlier, you can't provide an example of something that can be proven true. Scientifically, that is. In a sense, you're right. Our predecessors observed Lincoln, the Roman Empire, and Dinosaurs, repeatedly. They, in a way, were observing things, and writing down what they studied. However, what's to say that 1) They weren't lying. 2) Roman civilization never existed, only relics of it do. 3) Roman civilization was an optical illusion, and so were all events surrounding it. These are 3 preposterous theories, wouldn't you agree? But that's science for you. There will ALWAYS be another theory, and until all other theories are proven false (which is impossible, seeing as how some can not be tested) we will never prove something scientifically. It's likely, extremely so, to the point beyond any reasonable, or even most unreasonable, doubt, that the Roman Civilization existed. But you can't prove it scientifically. That is the resolution. That is the debate. Can you show me an example of something being PROVEN through science? That's the question. P1. She does have just as much legitimacy to be a criminal at the start. Then we take into consideration her distance form the crime scene, and her legitimacy falters. We consider that she's disabled, and it becomes extremely unlikely. Finally, we find evidence that she was sleeping in her nice warm Canadian bed when the crime occurred. She is not a suspect. But why would we even investigate her in the first place? We wouldn't. She is our "Roman Civilization was an optical illusion" theory. No one believes her. She may even be disproved already. But she represents the oddball theories that will forever be there. In court, we can provide overwhelming evidence to a being's guilt. However, we can never prove they murdered someone scientifically. They may have plunged the knife into the victim's heart ON CAMERA! But who's to say the laws of image capturing apply to this camera? Who's to say that this particular being wasn't impervious to knife wounds? Well, we have very likely and tested scientific law to say that these are improbable and not even doubt-worthy. However, you can't prove, scientifically, that they're impossible. It's a doozy of a subject, but really quite captivating if you think about it. What if we're all wrong about a certain scientific law or theory? What if there IS that one object that defies gravity naturally? P2. This analogy is rather pointless, in my opinion. My only point is that once a statement is false, it is false. Even if theories could be changed, thus preventing anything from being proven "false", it wouldn't mean that science could prove something "true". Therefore, I will concede this argument in the interest of time and space for my opponent's final arguments. I will save my formalities for the end, if you'll be gracious enough to allow them. Fantastic debating you this round, as always.