What testing do science based facts get through to be validated?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

A common question i get from theists is whether or not these information i present them can be manipulated by someone or something or how do we actually know that they are not an bioproduct of competition and many other factors , if science always changes and can be tested upon more tests , even testing the actual tests of the testing methods ( lol ) and things like that. So what is your counter argument for that? How can we be clear for everything we know. Talking about their methods , funding , scientists favoring certain subjects etc and taking in to account.

There's this thing called 'peer review' which, although not always perfectly applied, is a reasonably effective tool.

Suppose you're a geologist and you come up with a new theory regarding the formation of inclusions in minerals.  You do experiments which seem to support your theory.  But that's not enough - you could be understandably biased in favour of your theory.  So what you do is submit your work to a geology journal.  A panel of your peers (they'd be geologists as well) review your work and decide if it merits publication.  If it doesn't, it might be sent back to you for revision or rejected outright.  If it does get published, other geologists will attempt to replicate your work.  All of this determines whether or not your theory has merit.

It is also important to remember that all scientific knowledge, without exception, is provisional.  That's why science works the way it does - new theories are tested, older theories are revised or discarded.

Boru

edit:  Or, it could be voodoo.