There are a few errors in your last reply to me, that I decided to correct before anything else. As usual, I put your comment in Italics and quotation marks, and my own reply underneath it.
"I had to reexamine science through the lens that I had been programmed to presupposed things that were not actually established fact like say E=mc^2, F=ma, the periodic table, etc."
E=mc^2, F=MA, the periodic table, and tons of other similar equations actually well established facts, that have been tested, and re-tested, and tested over again. Each of them have had thousands of scientists trying to falsify them, and neither of them have failed a single test they have been put through.
Newton's laws of Motion, of which "F=MA" is one, are some of the most well-established scientific theories.
If you can actually falsify any of them, then there is a Nobel prize waiting for you.
"evolution is the probably actually the most refuted theory in science and is far from established"
Blatantly false. Evolution is actually one of the most well-established theories in modern science.
Not only has it been observed, it has also passed every single test it has been put to, to date. And this despite religious people having been trying to falsify it, pretty much since the day Darwin published it(if not before).
"Again, do this for me first, tell me how, when, and where the Static State Theory of the Universe was a tested theory that had undergo the rigors of the scientific process and became the accepted law/theory in the scientific community? Assume I could be talking about either theory."
Well, the last one was when Fred Hoyle and a few other scientists(I forget their names) took the idea of a Static/Steady State universe up again in the late 1940's(that's the "when"), this was, if I remember correctly, in Cambridge(that's the "where"). They way it was tested, like most other similar theories, was for predictions about the cosmos to be made, based on the theory. Then, they observed the facts, to find out if the predictions of the theory were true(which they were). I believe that was a relatively simple explanation of the "how".
It wasn't completely refuted until the discovery of Microwave background radiation, in the mid-60's. The Microwave background radiation had already been predicted by the big bang theory though.