[Stultis]

Note the absence of any suggestion in the above definiton - the same one evos keep posting- that, in order to be a theory, there must also be evidence that can refute, or falsify it.

The suggestion is not absent. It's right there in "well substantiated". Theories are well substantiated because they're tested, and that they can't be tested except by exploring their relation to relevant data, and unless that relation is determined by substantive demands of the theory on the data: what the data must show (or fail to show) in consequence of the theory being true.

[Fester Chugabrew]

The suggestion is not absent. It's right there in "well substantiated".

Please explain to me how "well-substantiated" means "capable of refutation," or "vulnerable."