Nothing in science is ever proven

Thank you very much for enlightening me, and again for your definition. I accept the Con's definition of the word Science. I will now refute my opponent's arguments. C1. My opponent is correct in one sense, but wrong in another. I talked earlier about historical fact being different than scientific fact. That still stands. What one must understand is that the Pro doesn't claim that there's no such thing as truth or fact in this world. I just stand by the fact that nothing in science is ever proven. In order for me to have proven incorrect, there will have to be evidence brought forth showing that SCIENCE, and not history, has proven a fact. No matter how many scientific tests or studies you perform systematically, you will not prove that Abraham Lincoln did exist. There is no way. You may find millions of written records of Lincoln through research, and have them coincide with other historical events, which coincide with present reality. But that would make it a historical fact, which is still a fact. It's just not a scientific fact, because there is no such thing. C2. My opponent says, "Even if a bear made a lizard, this would not destroy biological theory. It would require changes..." However, theory can not be changed. If I were to hypothesize that "bears could only give birth to baby bears", then there is no room for exception in my theory. The second that baby lizard appears from that poor, and probably very confused, mother bear, my theory is proven false. My opponent could then hypothesize that "Bears can give birth to baby bears and lizards, provided they are struck by radioactive lightning". His theory would be correct. He may have built his theory off of mine. He may even give me credit for starting the research. But my theory deserves it's "false" stamp on the wrist for all eternity. C3. (I'm moving the second half of C2 here, for clarity's sake) My opponent has claimed that as soon as I have proven a statement to be false scientifically, that I have then proven it's falsehood true and therefore have destroyed my own theory. Oh boy. Here we go. Better have some Tylenol or Ibuprofen handy, folks. Since I view this as the most crucial and threatening argument to my case so far, I will try and refute it here effectively and thoroughly. As I stated before, there is such a thing as "true" and "false". They can not exist together in the same reality. An answer, a statement, a hypothesis, will always be true or false. These are mutually exclusive. If I say "The Yankees are from New York.", this is true. If I say "The Yankees are from Boston.", this is a false statement. Simple enough? Right? Wrong. My opponent has pointed out something. If a statement is proven false, by it's very nature you have proven it true that it's false. So even if we can only disprove hypotheses in science, he claims that we are proving them truly false. But nonetheless, I have a response I believe is true, sensible, and adequate. Remember earlier, when I informed my opponent that things may be proven OUTSIDE of science? This is a great example of such a concept. To continue earlier's analogy, I hypothesize that "baby bears only give birth to baby bears". The lizard is born. My hypothesis is false, scientifically. The fact that it is false is true, not scientifically. Why? The answer is this, because we have not used scientific method to prove it is truly false. (Bear with me. I'm not making this stuff up) Just like earlier, with Abraham Lincoln, we could not run tests on our present reality to prove his existence, because science simply can't prove anything. The most it will do is admit a tendency. So we see here that my argument, and the resolution, still remains. Nothing can be proven in science. Even if something is disproved through science, the fact it is scientifically false is true, just not true scientifically. Now that we have that lovely brain teaser out of the way... P1: Yes. All theories should be ABLE to be assumed true, until proven false. It doesn't me we should assume they're all true. But if you test a theory and cannot disprove it, until you do, it may be considered true. However, it would be illogical to assume multiple hypotheses true. So if there are two contradicting hypotheses, we know one is false, but you can not claim yours is any more legitimate scientifically than mine until you prove mine false. Do we know which hypotheses are more likely than others? Yes. So we test those that we think are most likely. We ignore those that aren't, just like you don't investigate the disabled Canadian grandma for a serial killing in Argentina. The idea that the Earth was flat is a great example supporting scientific theory in my opinion. Until the earth was proven round, both the assumption that the earth was flat, and that the earth was round, were equally legitimate, yet mutually exclusive obviously! This is why, whilst the flat theory was proven false scientifically, the round theory still remains true because it has not been proven false. P2. As I said earlier, a statement isn't changed, and neither is a theory. You may change your ideas. But the theory, or the statement, that said something incorrect, will forever be branded false. Imagine your village is on an island frequently plagued by earthquakes, (representing testing done scientifically) if your village falters, even in only one area, it will crumble. You may rebuild where that village was. You may follow most of the same structure and layout of the previous village. However, your new village will not be the same village. I look forward to my opponent's response, and continuing this truly engaging debate. Thank you.