actually no this is not correct. The flat earth theory was held heavily as a scientific theory for years. that ships would just fall off the face of the earth, however science knew for a fact that the earth was flat. science was proven wrong.
So what? I never said that science is right about anything, only that evidence is the best path to truth. Anything that is scientifically "proven" is only provisionally true. If at some point we learn more, then when can prove old theories wrong and replace them with new ones, but it is important to remember that over a long enough timeline science always gains information. It always gets closer to the truth.
The point I was making, which you seemed to have missed, is that if you want evidence for a position you hold, in this day and age you will almost always find it. Theories aren't "proven" soley on the strength of evidence found to support them, but more importantly that there is no clear evidence against it.
then you realize that the big bang theory was just proven wrong correct?
That's you're problem right there. You think that proving a theory wrong undermines the integrity of science, but your wrong and it just demonstrates your bias and lack of understanding. It demonstrates that science is based on available information. There is no doctrine of belief. Any theory can be shown to be wrong, and like I just said, it's not an abundance of evidence for competing theories that proves a theory wrong, but negative evidence that undermines it. If this is in fact the case, super.
Furthermore, I wouldn't start flapping my arms just yet. One research team at King's College in London has written a paper an published it in
"Physical Review Letters". Ill be very interested to see how others follow up on the work and if it is indeed true, and if it is I will revel in the fact that science has increased our knowledge of the universe.
You should know that there have always been alternate theories to the big bang and claimed problems with it....
Problems with the Big Bang Theory - HowStuffWorks
Yet we have documented evidence from one of the most accurate historical authors that over 500 people saw him after his death on the cross.
each of these people saw him at different times and instances. so if you think they are lying or deluded please provide evidence.
Stories written thousands of years ago do not make concrete proof.
This is what I'm talking about...I don't have to prove that he did or didn't die on a cross, there is nothing miraculous about that, but we know the body cant reanimate after 3 days. That's my proof it didn't happen. I can also offer many, many plausible alternatives that could explain such an even't.
If you believe it, cool, but just admit that it must be taken on faith. You can't prove something like that. The best you can do is show that it might have happened, but you can't prove it the way that I can prove that water is 2 parts oxygen and 1 part hydrogen.