You could empirically prove a resurrection if it happened right in front of you right now. Guy's dead and then he's alive. Simple observation. What you probably couldn't do, if the resurrection was actually done by God or whatever, is explain how it happened naturalistically, without appealing to a supernatural cause. But to infer that that means miracles are invalid is to assume that only the natural world exists -- an assertion you can't possibly prove scientifically, yet ironically the one on which your entire worldview is built.
If you're referring to the specific resurrection of Jesus, that can't be proved today through pure physical science, seeing as it was allegedly about two thousand years ago and pretty much any relevant physical evidence would be long gone by now, but circumstantial evidence from a number of other disciplines is enough for many well-respected scientists and intellectuals to at least consider it not a wholly unreasonable possibility, and certainly any scientist with any integrity would object to your bald categorical assertion, currently backed up by absolutely no evidence, that Christianity cannot possibly be true. At best, you can say it is unscientific -- but what does that mean?
To say that science disproves Christianity, while perhaps somewhat accurate, is at best misleading and dishonest. Science cannot deal with the supernatural -- it is designed to assume that only the natural exists. When you say "Science disproves Christianity," it sounds to the untrained ear like you are saying that it can be conclusively proven that Christianity is false. In reality, all you can really be saying is that the supernatural cannot fit into a system designed specifically not to let it fit in. Until you can give good reason, outside of science, to believe that the supernatural does not exist, you're merely pointing out the difference between two mindsets, unable to actually say that one is better than the other.
As a side note -- one that's still mostly a personal notion, not fully developed into a complete thought -- who says the natural can't be supernatural? I was watching a show on the History Channel or something a while ago that suggested that the parting of the Red Sea wasn't a magical lifting of the water into walls on either side, but rather a volcano that happened to erupt in just the right place at just the right time to create a landbridge which would last just long enough for all the Israelites to cross. Wouldn't that be even more amazing? For an omnipotent deity, just lifting up the water right there would be nothing, but if instead He set the tectonic plates in motion however many thousands or millions or billions of years ago just right so that a perfectly-sized volcano would be formed at the exact minute it was needed, all of it planned out long beforehand, maybe that's an even greater display of power and wisdom. Why should God have to always work against the very system He created in order to work miracles?
Not that any of that has anything to do with time, of course.
