This is not some controversial subject. The word "theory" does not mean what you think it means.
"Scientific laws are not breakable and the phenomena they describe when tested are utterly repeatable and reproducible. Electromagnetism is a phenomenon upon which the computer you are looking at works."
"As for the issue you continue to raise that is not related to the subject of this thread, I will stand with Karl Popper. Scientific method is not something to be abused."
It's ironic that you would bring up Popper right after saying, "Scientific laws are not breakable". Popper would tell you that you can never know for certain that a "law" is true. You can only know for certain when it's false.
"Scientific laws" are just more compact ways to express the conclusions of theory. We refer to the "law of gravity" and its related equation rather than cite Newton's entire theory. But like theories, there's no guarantee that "laws" are certain either. In fact the Newtonian "law of gravity" isn't quite correct and was refined by Einstein.
I'm afraid you aren't in a position to be lecturing on the scientific method.
High-handed responses do not befit those who engage in science. Leave that to the liberals and take the high road.
Scientific law does not describe theory; it’s the other way around (to wit, the theory seeks to answer “What is electromagnetism” versus “What does electromagnetism do” when related to this particular phenomenon). As for the off-topic subject you insist on persisting to discuss, there aren’t any scientific laws to fit with it; there are a number of unrelated observations that a zealous cadre are desperately trying to stitch together in an unscientific way. But we do have freedom of religion in the USA, so I try not to treat such devotees as spitefully as they want to treat me.