Design process

[Naraoia]

That's because it was made up. You can reverse-engineer this universe back to the moment of the Creation, then you reach a barrier that no physical science can explain; so, like any "good scientist," you make something up, call it a theory, then sit back and expect people to pwn it. If they can't*, instead of being "good scientists" and discarding it, you simply let it remain a valid theory.

* What's that goofy made-up term you guys use? Unfalsifyability?

You are aware that there is a difference between not being falsified and not being falsifiable, right?

 

[FightForFamily]

Hello and welcome to the forums!

Now, would you perhaps explain to me which theory AV1611VET meant? I didn't understand what he was referring to, but apparently, you did.

He means that, when scientists find something they can't explain, they make something up and expect people to destroy it.

 

[Naraoia]

He means that, when scientists find something they can't explain, they make something up and expect people to destroy it.

Umm, no? They say "we don't know but based on what we do know this and this might be how it works", and then see if "this and this" actually fits the evidence.

(And I see you've failed to tell us which "this and this" AV was referring to.)

 

[MrGoodBytes]

He means that, when scientists find something they can't explain, they make something up and expect people to destroy it.

Examples, please?

Assuming he really means that - which, given his near total ignorance of literally everything outside the King James bible, is unfortunately quite plausible - he is wrong as wrong can be. Scientists do not simply "make something up", they are expected to support their claims with evidence. I don't know where you get the part about expecting people to "destroy" anything from - maybe you are referring to peer review?