The truth about the mainstream cosmologist establishment

Well, according to that website, cosmologists are using non-falsifiable hypotheses.And that you can observe that the redshift indicates youth of a stellar object not velocity.And that all these phenomena can be explained electrically. Black holes are not detectable, but cosmologists make up the concept to explain their mathematical formulas. Dark matter is another obvious example.And the OP says that such falsifiable hypotheses might very well apply to TOE as well.And you can't expect him to give up his faith for such "debating tricks."He's saying that people who believe in evolution are using a trick of argument: "How do you know that evolution is not true? Therefore, it is true. It fits our mathematical model." Like a black hole fits the model of the cosmologists.So I guess there are some non-falsifiable hypotheses in TOE.

I'm kidding, but I assume the author of the OP is not.But let's just follow his reasoning to see where it leads. After all, you never know.comparison:
black holes are undetectable. Perhaps they do not exist. The only reason one might think they exist is that they fit a mathematical model.Maybe there is something in TOE that is undetectable.example: macroevolution.Have you ever witnessed it? Me neither.Is macroevolution a non-falsifiable hypothesis? Is there anyway to test whether macro-evolution ever happened?Is there a model that macroevolution is being forced into?

Such as?