https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_cartographyIn the 1700s, the Cassini family made maps of France. These maps are so accurate that they can be superimposed on current maps and the roads match. This map was used by many, detailed and accurate. At the same time, the east coast of the Americas had been axplored, settled, and mapped accurately. The west coast of the Americas is missing or wrong on these maps, as is Australia, Hawaii, Alaska. Baja CA was shown as an island in one famous early attempt at a map of the est coast of the Americas.
So at the same time, cartography had a reliable, useful, accurate map and a map of the Pacific rim that was wrong and incomplete. So what to think of cartography? Accurate and useful, or wrong and in need of overhaul.
The same situation exists in modern science. Like France in 1800, many people had walked the territory and worked out where everything really was. We could say the map of France was "settled", so much confirmation and so many using the map. Few Eurpopeans had explored the west cioast of the Americas and the pacific, so the maps were sketchy and often wrong. As more people came and explored more, those maps converged on accuracy.
In 1800, one could say, the maps of the pacific keep changing, maybe cartography is screwed up. Perhaps we should doubt the map of France? If you don't acknowledge the reasons why some maps are more accurate than others, you could make false claims and waste time re-doing the map of France.
Similarly, in science, some areas have been thoroughly mapped and those maps repeatedly checked. These areas are things like F+MA, the preiodic chart, and round earth. You can dispute this, but these maps have been subject to many tests and are never wrong. There is a "new world" in science, noty accurately mapped yet, people still working on difficult to explore questions. The science equivalent is big bang, string theory, and quantum. Like the maps of the pacific in 1800, there are incomplete and conflicting maps. Even scientists will agree that this stuff is not completely or certainly understood.
My point is that when you are discussing with FE, they can always say you might be wrong, because science is wrong/incomplete/controversial. Yet the "settled science" of things long discovered, tested many times by experiment and by engineers is so likely that most treat it as true, and it works. FEs try to put the incompleteness and error corrections of big bang, quantum, and string theory off on some very tested and well known science.
In other words, in 1800, saying the map of France is wrong because the maps of the new worlds are may bolster your argument, but revisiting F=MA, the periodic chart, and the earth is round is a waste of time. The earth is flat has the same odds as F not equal MA and the periodic chart is wrong.