Lackey, if you're going to use the "have you seen it yourself?" tactic, it usually works better if the argument you're trying to refute isn't also asking for direct, observational proof - preferably proof that isn't a century and a half old.
So bring something to the table or go back to your corner.
You're right, facts totally have an expiration date. Obviously you don't trust Newton at all, given that his works are several centuries old. And it won't be too long before we can throw Relativity completely out the window too on the same basis!
Newton had years of research and a corpus of work to support his theories, not to mention most of the history of physics and mathematics to build on.
Since then, Newton's theories have been tried, tested and amended as our experience grows. This doesn't change the fact that his laws of motion still hold, just that they are the foundation on which we build newer and better theories.
In the same way, explorers and even tourists have been to and around Antarctica, observed it from space and seen the fact there is no wall - just a shelf of ice that makes part of the coast of a continent. Ross have us a primary observation upon which we built an image of what is really going on in the world. Thats how science works.
When a theory is outdated, it is discarded in the face of new evidence that proposes a new theory, as you say. Perhaps we can use it's original concepts to build a new theory, but if the evidence demands a new perspective then we interpret and go from there.
So if we're going to discard the theory that there is no ice wall, we will need evidence that there is one, right?
Where is it?