This thread is sad now. I know it's fashionable/pro-religion to stomp your feet and claim we can't know or prove anything but surely we're better than that.

To prove means something like "to demonstrate that X is true". If you agree that we can demonstrate that gasoline is flammable then you agree that we can prove it. It's similar to how we can have knowledge without absolute certainty.

So what the whole counter-science argument amounts to in this case is something like:

1) science can't prove even basic facts (which it can)
2) science can't prove models and untestable theories (real scientists will laugh at you and say duh)
3) scientists are people to and have the same cognitive biases (by far the best point, and an important one, but less focused because the truth of this point is one of the main reasons for the scientific method in the first place)

The sophists most powerful argument in this case turns out to be radically pro-science, ironically.