There might be some holes in evolution, but I believe quite a bit of it. Natural selection is defiantly true more than likely.

Was there any proof of atoms not being a tomos (in-dividual) before Otto Hahn in 1938? Rutherford's experiments in 1917 paved the way, but that was also a hundred years ago.

Is there any scientific publication that postulates the existance of other galaxies before 1917?

Point is not to argue at what specific time scientific facts got overthrown - the history of science is perpetual change of consencus, no reason to believe our facts remain. Whatever dark energy & matter is will likely overthrow existing concepts of reality again.

The big money question if if our mode of acquiring knowledge will ever lead forward to a truth (if such a thing exists ontological) or perpetual sidestepping like the last thousands of years.

I'd consider Rutherford's experiments the point at which we knew the atom was non indivisible.  But, if they were doing those experiments in 1917, I'd imagine there was some dispute before then.  

As for scientific publications that postulate the existence of other galaxies, naturally I don't have them at my disposal.  Nor am I aware of any science books touting the opposite.  While other galaxies weren't postulated precisely, there was a belief in an infinite number of stars in the universe.  It was a common belief for a few hundred years.  It started being challenged in the 1700's in Olber's paradox which questioned how the sky could ever be dark with so infinite stars.

I'm not sure that any of this was proposed as fact though.  Obviously someone probably did, but I don't know if it was on a large scale.

I'd say the prepetual change in science is getting closer to the truth.  Newton's theory of gravity was not perfect, but it was certainly an advancement that provided useful practical benefits (and is still accurate in most cases).  Einstein's theory of relativity again was not perfect, but was a huge leap forward.  Darwin's theory of natural selection was also not perfect, but it set us on a path to the point where evolutionary models are used to fight disease.  Freud's theory (which are borderline science) were far off base, but they nevertheless yielded useful concepts that have helped our understanding of the brain tremendously.

I'd hardly call this sidestepping.  I'd call it progress.  What we know now is demonstrably more accurate than what we had in the past.  

Well I see it as fact but it is not 100% proven as that is why

It is called the Theory of Evolution and not the Law of Evolution.

This is 100% incorrect. You're using the words "theory" and "law" incorrectly as they apply to science.

In science, theory can never, ever, ever become a law. They serve two completely different purposes, and in no way indicate the level at which we believe the topic to be factual.

P.S. It's actually called "The Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection". See, what it does is describe the mechanism (Natural Selection) which is used to propogate the phenomena of evolution. There will never be a "Law of Evolution via Natural Selection" because that wouldn't make any sense given that Evolution really can't be modelled in a mathematical sense.

Absolutely perfect.  Most of what is below was defended as "fact" once upon a time quite similar to the pages of responses we've seen here in this thread.  The theories many here are claiming as FACT will likely look quite different in another thousand years when our perspective is greater. We are still such scientific infants but too many are too proud of the leaps we've made in the last couple hundred years to see past their hubris.

Superseded scientific theories

Biology

• Spontaneous generation - is a principle regarding the spontaneous generation of complex life from inanimate matter, which held that this process was a commonplace and everyday occurrence, as distinguished from univocal generation, or reproduction from parent(s). Falsified by an experiment by Louis Pasteur—where apparently spontaneous generation of microorganisms occurred, it did not happen on repeating the process without access to unfiltered air; on then opening the apparatus to the atmosphere, bacterial growth started.
• Transmutation of species, Lamarckism, inheritance of acquired characteristics - first theories of evolution. Not supported by experiment, and rendered obsolete by Darwinian evolution and Mendelian genetics, although some elements of Lamarckian evolution are coming back in the area of epigenetics.
• Mendelian genetics, classical genetics, Boveri–Sutton chromosome theory - first genetical theories. Not invalidated as such, but subsumed into molecular genetics.
• Maternal impression – the theory that the mother's thoughts created birth defects. No experimental support (a notion rather than a theory), and rendered obsolete by genetic theory (see also fetal origins of adult disease, genomic imprinting)
• Miasma theory of disease – the theory that diseases are caused by "bad air". No experimental support, and rendered obsolete by the germ theory of disease.
• Preformationism – the theory that all organisms have existed since the beginning of life, and that gametes contain a miniature but complete preformed individual, in the case of humans, a homunculus. No support when microscopy became available. Rendered obsolete by cytology, discovery of DNA, and atomic theory.
• Recapitulation theory – the theory that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". See Baer's laws of embryology.
• Telegony – the theory that an offspring can inherit characteristics from a previous mate of its mother's as well as its actual parents, often associated with racism.
• Vitalism – the theory that living things are alive because of some "vital force" independent of nonliving matter, as opposed to because of some appropriate assembly of nonliving matter. It was gradually discredited by the rise of organic chemistry, biochemistry, and molecular biology, fields that failed to discover any "vital force". Friedrich Wöhler's synthesis of urea from ammonium cyanate was only one step in a long road, not a great refutation.
• Out of Asia theory of human origin – The majority view is of a recent African origin of modern humans, although a multiregional origin of modern humans hypothesis has much support (which incorporates past evidence of Asian origins)
• Azoic hypothesis - that marine life cannot exist below 300 fathoms. Disproven in 1850 with the discovery of Rhizocrinus lofotensis.

Chemistry

• Caloric theory - the theory that a self-repelling fluid called "caloric" was the substance of heat. Rendered obsolete by the mechanical theory of heat.
• Classical elements - All matter was once thought to be composed of various combinations of classical elements (most famously air, earth, fire, and water). This was finally refuted by Antoine Lavoisier's publication of Elements of Chemistry, which contained the first modern list of chemical elements, in 1789.
• Phlogiston theory – The theory that combustible goods contain a substance called "phlogiston" which entered air upon combustion. Replaced by Lavoisier's work on oxidation
• Point 2 of Dalton's Atomic Theory was obsoleted by discovery of isotopes, and point 3 by discovery of subatomic particles and nuclear reactions.
• Vitalism - See section on biology.

Physics

• Emission theory of vision – discredited by Ibn al-Haytham (Alhacen)
• Aristotelian physics – superseded by Newtonian physics
• Ptolemy's law of refraction, replaced by Snell's law
• Luminiferous aether – failed to be detected by the sufficiently sensitive Michelson-Morley experiment, made obsolete by Einstein's work.
• Caloric theory – Lavoisier's successor to phlogiston, discredited by Rumford's and Joule's work
• Contact tension – a theory on the source of electricity
• Vis viva – Gottfried Leibniz's elementary and limited early formulation of the principle of conservation of energy
• "Purely electrostatic" theories of the generation of voltage differences.
• Emitter theory – another now-obsolete theory of light propagation.
• Balance of nature – superseded by catastrophe theory and chaos theory
• Progression of atomic theory

• Democritus, the originator of atomic theory, held that everything is composed of atoms, which are indestructible
• John Dalton's model of the atom, which held that atoms are indivisible and indestructible (superseded by nuclear physics) and that all atoms of a given element are identical in mass (superseded by discovery of atomic isotopes).^[1]
• Plum pudding model of the atom—assuming the protons and electrons were mixed together in a single mass
• Rutherford model of the atom with an impenetrable nucleus orbited by electrons
• Bohr model with quantized orbits
• Electron cloud model following the development of quantum mechanics in 1925 and the eventual atomic orbital models derived from the quantum mechanical solution to the hydrogen atom

• All of classical physics, including Newtonian physics, superseded by relativistic physics and quantum physics. However, classical physics is a limiting case of the latter two theories, and it is often a very good approximation.

Astronomy and cosmology

• Ptolemaic system – replaced by Nicolaus Copernicus' Heliocentric model.
• Geocentric universe – made obsolete by Copernicus
• Heliocentric universe – made obsolete by discovery of the structure of the Milky Way. Heliocentrism only applies to the Solar System, and only approximately, since the Sun's center is not at the Solar System's center of mass.
• Copernican system – made obsolete by Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton
• Newtonian gravity – superseded by general relativity, to which it is an excellent approximation unless typical speeds approach that of light in a vacuum . The anomalous perihelion precession of Mercury was the first observational evidence that Newtonian gravity was not totally accurate.
• Luminiferous aether theory
• Steady State Theory, a model developed by Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle whereby the expanding universe was in a steady state, and had no beginning. It was a competitor of the Big Bang model until evidence supporting the Big Bang and falsifying the steady state was found.

Geography and climate

• Flat Earth theory. On length scales much smaller than the radius of the Earth, a flat map projection gives a quite accurate and practically useful approximation to true distances and sizes, but departures from flatness become increasingly significant over larger distances.
• Terra Australis
• Hollow Earth theory
• The Open Polar Sea, an ice-free sea once supposed to surround the North Pole
• Rain follows the plow – the theory that human settlement increases rainfall in arid regions (only true to the extent that crop fields evapotranspirate more than barren wilderness)
• Island of California – the theory that California was not part of mainland North America but rather a large island

Geology

• Abiogenic petroleum origin
• Catastrophism was largely replaced by uniformitarianism
• Flood geology replaced by modern geology and stratigraphy
• Neptunism replaced by plutonism
• The following were superseded by plate tectonics:
  • Expanding Earth theory (superseded by subduction)
  • Geosyncline theory
  • The theory of continental drift was incorporated into and improved upon by plate tectonics

Psychology

• Pure behaviorist explanations for language acquisition in infancy, falsified by the study of cognitive adaptations for language.^[2]

Medicine

• Theory of the four bodily humours (see also Four temperaments)
• Eclectic Medicine – Transformed into alternative medicine, and is no longer considered a scientific theory.
• Physiognomy, related to phrenology, held that inner character was strongly correlated with physical appearance.

Pretty much, yes.

False.
Evolution is like a tree, we have a common ancestor with Apes, we didn't evolve from Apes.
Or you take a Great Dane and a Chiwawa... They are very distinct and different breeds of "dogs". - But they both evolved from a common ancestor, the Wolf. - the Wolf didn't stop existing as soon as Dogs came around however, dogs branched off.

Speciation has been proven to occur in real time... But we can't use a mammals with much longer life and breeding times, we need to use insects, such as the fruit fly, otherwise it would take longer than a life time to observe.
William Rice and George Salt back in the 80's built a maze with several different paths, with each path having different characteristics, such as one path being wet/dry or light/dark. - Each fly generation was placed into the maze... And the group of flies that exited out of one part of the maze were only allowed to breed with each other and not with the flies that exited out of another part of the maze.

After a few dozen generations, the fly's ended up being extremely distinct to the point where they couldn't even breed with each other when reintroduced, they were two seperate species.

That test has been done multiple times, peer reviewed and verified... Even you could do it in your home and watch evolution in real time.

Then we have the Wall Lizards... Which shows rapid evolution.

In the 70's Italian wall lizards were introduced to a small island where they weren't native, decades later they were compared to the native italian wall lizards... And there were substantual biological changes in the species, their diets changed from one that was insect-heavyt to one that was plant-heavy, the diet change resulted in the introduced lizards having a larger head with a stronger bite, new muscles in the intestine to seperate food portions to aid the bacteria to break down the plant matter.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

I can provide many more expamples if you require it.

False. It is a Theory.

You take a bunch of facts that have been derived from verified, peer reviewed observation and experimentation... You build a model around that, which then is used to build a Theory.

Theories are not a guess, they are reliable accounts.

The Theory of Evolution most certainly does exist, we have observed changes in animals in real time, we have built models and experiments around that, we then use that to forward the Theory of Evolution.

Sorry that I had to cut your post, it was extensively long, I would have preferred to have given you the proper reply that you deserve... However. I would probably end up here all day. I'll keep it short instead.

The Bible is the Claim, not evidence.
If you have to re-interpret the Bible in a different way that deviates from the written literal interpretation of the text to make it compatible with science, then the Bible is inaccurate. Plain and Simple.

There is no evidence for God, there is no evidence of Intelligent design, ergo. Your religious ideology should not come before science... And you shouldn't try to fit your religion in with science, science has nothing to do with religion, it doesn't care about religion and it certainly doesn't care if a God does/does not exist... What science is truly about is explaining what we have observed with evidence, models and experimentation... Aka. Everything that your religion is against.

Science never claims to know something with certitude. It gives the best estimate we can get with the means available. Scientists know that their models will eventually be reworked. Scientists also tend to know where the biggest uncertitudes are. It is not to be forgotten that progress in the last century has been far beyond anything we have seen previously, thanks to a global uniformized collaboration and a greater focus on education.

Many of those you named were, despite their flaws, a major step in the right direction.

Yes, but it's not feasible that we're going to come across a discovery that completely disproves the theory of evolution.