Scientific proof

It is known that Karl Popper founded the idea that a scientific theory is a theory that can be debunked.
He further added that a scientific theory can never be proven, but only subjected to the test of refutation, and at most to the denial of refutation. (And there is no difference between a theory that explains existing phenomena and a theory that predicts them in advance; the theory is not further confirmed when it explains more things.)
And everyone’s intuition says that a test confirms a theory and not just prevents discord.
And when I read the first book in the trilogy, I was awakened by this in the Bible to the depth of the matter. The Rabbi Dahana brought there that if the number six comes up on a dice many times, it means that the dice is unfair. The same applies if any sequence comes out that is significant in the eyes of the observer, even though each sequence is statistically unlikely, it is one of many sequences, and in the Bible, if there is a significant number in the eyes of the observer, this is considered objectively unlikely.
And it is clear that when I state a scientific theory and put it to the test, unlike a theory that explains existing phenomena, the experiment puts an observation to the test. If a significant result is realized in my opinion, it is a sign that the ‘dice’ is unfair and there is a law that dictates that it should act in this particular way. And unlike a theory that explains existing phenomena, which may have other possibilities to explain them, as soon as I state a theory and expect a certain result, the expectation enters as an additional data point, raising the likelihood of the theory being correct.
Are these things true?