That is comic exaggeration, but you've almost certainly heard people insist that the evidence for their position is that some scientist was wrong at some point. It's particularly comic from creationists.
They don't say it with those exact words, but not only would they claim to be right based on when a scientist was once wrong, they are very keen to claim to be right based on what they wrongly think a scientist was once wrong on.
I no longer engage with these people for sport, but about 15-10 years ago I had two scientific creationists that I kept around as virtual pets. one was Hindu and one was from the religion of peace. neither was very stable and both were prone to getting a bit emotional about it.
each time, they would pick one piece of settled science, but they didn't have the mathematical machinery to understand the model itself, so they would rely on the layman cartoon versions and misunderstand something crucial there. for example, the existence of error bars on the concordance plot of radioactive dating. from this they could throw doubt on the whole chronology of the formation of the solar system and the evolution of man. for one of them, a technological civilisation from Hindu mythology existed millions of years ago. for the other, their very peaceful god created everything personally in one go, and evolution by natural selection didn't happen.
