I'll give you 100 pennies if you can scientifically prove that science can't prove christianity wrong.

The law of inertia.

Let's put a cup full of water on a solid flat surface, like a concrete floor in a concrete room. A solid room where there is no wind or external forces. There are also no earthquakes today.

Can you tip over the cup of water without using some sort of force? If you don't push it with something solid, or blow it over with a strong fan, can it tip over? No, it can't. It's not possible.

now we're getting somewhere


Ok maybe not You should go write the word tends and its definition on the blackboard 943948948394839 times for this one.

Edit: also, consider what a scientist would have concluded about the law of inertia before we knew about friction

What?

Newton used the word tends because it's not an absolute.

And if someone slid a block across the floor and it stopped, unless they knew about friction they would conclude that an object in motion tends to stop, rather than remain in motion. That's the point, really. Science doesn't deal in absolute negatives because we don't know everything, so if we proclaimed everything we can't accomplish to be impossible we would just look silly when future generations figured them out. Or worse, future generations may not bother because we have mistaken our lack of knowledge for impossibility. Virtually every piece of modern technology could have been proven to be impossible 100 years ago if science worked the way you want it to.

That is not what is meant by "proving a negative". What you describe are negative results of testable positives.

Ex. 1: Is he alive? (this is question about a positive, being alive). The response is "negative", but the question or hypothesis is a testable positive.

Ex. 2: Do I have herpes? (again, this is a question about a positive).

An example of proving a negative is Russell's Teapot or The Dragon in my Garage. Two points are made with these examples. One is that you cannot prove a negative. The other is that the onus of proof is on the one making a claim.

So, although science cannot prove a negative, it doesn't need to. The burden of proof is on the religious.

just ignore this troll, he's obviously being purposely dense

Sir Isaac Newton

Pfft, I could troll much better than this if I wanted to. It would be a level at best.

I'm genuine, apparently genuinely dense, but I still stand by my statement that science can prove those events wrong.