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

[I believe in Harry Potter]

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.

[no one]

Science never changes. Human understanding of scientific processes becomes more precise as time goes on.

A thousand years ago, not a single person on the planet had a clue to how stars were born. That did not change the science of how stars were born.

[Fireball]

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.

It's called the scientific method, and they should have learned it in about 4th grade. Theists are just trying to ignorant their way around/out of the argument. They evidently have no problem looking like dunces to anyone who does know this. That's called willful ignorance. People who act like that get zero of my time.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Fact are not tested.  Theories regarding facts are tested.

Thought you were leaving.

Boru

[zebo-the-fat]

Science is not a subject, it is a way of thinking.
Scientific ideas are tested against observed facts, if the facts don't agree with the idea then the idea is modified or rejected, so we get closer to the true understanding of the way the universe works.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It be voodoo, mon!

[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. 

[Alex K]

The competition is precisely why it is difficult to get away with manipulation in the long run.
Things get replicated by other people, before that happens you *should* absolutely approach new results with scepticism.

[Silver]

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.

Let us start with this change aspect.

Theists see change as bad, because their god and their religious ideas are unchanging. There is a problem with this theistic concept, because it does not allow for the progression of mankind. Rather, when something is unchanging, it stays forever in the past and does not allow for growth.

Science, on the other hand, changes its understanding based on new facts that are discovered, which is the true means of progressing beyond a fixed point. Yes, science could have been wrong in the past, but it corrects itself by updating itself. Unlike religion, which cannot and will not correct itself, because of its narcissism.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The competition is precisely why it is difficult to get away with manipulation in the long run.
Things get replicated by other people, before that happens you *should* absolutely approach new results with scepticism.

It's a pretty poor researcher who takes the position, 'I've got this great theory that solves the n-body problem, but I'm not going to let you see it.'

Boru