Originally Posted by Lusankya
Scientific laws are no more solid evidence than scientific theories. A scientific law is a simple, basic concept around which a science revolves. But they're not any more "evidence" than a scientific theory. That's why Einstein's "theory" of General Relativity supersedes Newton's "law" of Gravity.
Also, if you mean the literary definition of an "epic", the Bible is not one. For one, epics are specifically poems, like the Odyssey.
Theories are scientific hypotheses based on facts and laws. Laws are set-in-stone facts. Facts change quite often, for instance: Science taught that matter could not be destroyed, stated as a fact. However, scientists have now found that it can be destroyed. Facts are based off of theories that have been tested repetitively and show no signs of contradiction at that moment, but can still change if another fact is uncovered that contradicts the previous. If said fact has no contradictions, and can be proved time and time again, it is considered law.
Laws must be used under the same conditions, and cannot be changed no matter the circumstance. Facts change often, and are based of theories. Theories are based off of previous facts that have been tested to be true during that moment. Facts are based off of theory and law, of which the latter is the only completely true proof. I believe facts, however I acknowledge that they may become untrue. I completely trust law, for it is completely true, without any contradiction. I trust a theory somewhat, for it is based off of facts that I believe to be true until proven otherwise. It is a big cycle.