Is the TOE falsifiable and if it was, would it advance Biblical Creationism

That's a misunderstanding of "unfalsifiable". The point of falsifiability is to rule out statements such as:

All bachelors are unmarried men.

​

That is, the idea is to rule out statements which are necessarily true by virtue of the meanings of the various words used. An unfalsifiable statement would be necessarily true, and no evidence could ever show otherwise.

​

It makes no sense to say that ToE is both false and unfalsifiable.

​

It's unfalsifiable because it's mostly hypothetical scenarios treated as fact.

That would make it true but of no scientific relevance. However, that's a gross mischaracterization of ToE.

Actually we have already pointed to several things that would falsify the TOE so I wonder how you can suuport that assertion.From Message 1

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think it's important to point out that falsification of a scientific theory would not by necessity lead to it's total rejection. Generally speaking, observations that seem to contradict a scientific theory would most likely lead to the theory being modified. To totally discard a scientific theory you would have to supply a better scientific one. In both of these cases, the theory in question would have been falsified. The consequences of the falsification were, however, quite different. What does this all mean for ToE? Are there any observations that could possibly lead to a major revision of the theory? There have historically been major new developments that could have caused major upheaval to the theory. A major prediction of ToE, given the discovery of the role of the genetic code, was that closely related species should have DNA that was more similar to eachother than the DNA of more distantly related species. I.e. if species A and B are closely related to eachother and species C is distantly related to both A and B, then the DNA of species A and B should be more similar to eachother than any of those species are to species C. This is also what has been found. It is difficult to foresee if there are any such major new developments that might potentially have the ability to falsify ToE to such an extent. jar mentioned fossils that were "out of order" and that would certainly falsify parts of the theory. But note: if you want to falsify ToE to the extent that it is discarded, you have to supply a scientific theory that better explains the diversity of life we presently have on this planet.There you go Faith. ToE is falsifiable, and all you have to do to falsify it is to provide a better scientific explanation for the diversity of life we see around us today.

the problem with falsifing ToE is that at the same time you need to falsify some major sciencentific methodolgy ...ToE is build on a raft of many very different sciences , it is not dependant on a single equation , or a single mapped chemical pathway .
In the BIG BOOK OF SCIENCE you would not only need to change the ToE chapter but also many other chapters .In a different discussion , sorry cant find link , some one asked if the ToE did not exsist , given all current scientific material, what sort of theory of why creatures are the way they are , what do they pass on to offspring , do they change , et al ...would the "scientic" community come up with ??as to advancing Biblical creation ... only if the new evidence relates specifical to the bible ..but would that not be a exaple of gods fingerprints being found ??

Not at all. For example, I'm pretty sure a dinosaur fossil mingled with a modern human fossil would cause the ToE some serious problems! Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

It's worth noting that creationists recently had a golden opportunity to falsify the entire theory of evolution at one go. Evolutionary science would be dead today if they had succeeded.That chance was genetics.Until recently, scientists could say little about where mutations came from. If pressed to explain, they admitted that little was known about this but that the emerging field of genetics would yield a bonanza of information.Creationists crowed. Some of them confidently predicted that evolutionary theory would be dead by the end of the twentieth century. Why? Because genetics, rather than explaining more about the theory, would kill it for good.Creationists 'knew' that by the year 2000 scientists would understand that DNA stands in clearly distinct categories. Chimpanzee DNA is unique. Human DNA is unique. Celery DNA is unique. Scientists would know chimpanzee DNA has no more in common with human DNA than celery DNA does. Each living thing with its own unique blueprint. Each item in its own genetic category with no possibility of crossover. Scientists would be busy looking at these unique codes and cataloging the various 'kinds'. Once in a while, they would spare a thought for their predecessors, and wonder how anyone was ever so stupid as to imagine that one species could be ancestral to another.Yes, genetics would settle the matter. Once the facts were in, someone's theory was doomed.

---

Archer

The reason it's unfalsifiable is that there is no way to prove anything about the past; anything can be rationalized. If a dinosaur and a human fossil were found together, the theory would simply be adjusted to put humans farther back or dinosaurs farther into the future and everyone would marvel about the new discovery. It would even be forgotten that creationists have always claimed they had co-existed, because the overall geological time scale would not shift.

Well, all the facts AREN'T yet in, and the crowing evolutionists do about the supposed similarities will no doubt yet run afoul of some facts yet to be learned about the respective genomes that do distinguish the kinds.

Nitpick: I can remember when creationists denied that dinosaurs existed at all.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Not all creationists denied that.

Very good Faith. Perhaps you are beginning to understand just how bankrupt the Biblical Creationist and YEC position are.Before Biblical Creationism or Young Earth could every be taken seriously, or even half seriously, they need to provide models that better explain the observed universe than the current models.If we began finding not just one example of a primate and dinosuar but rather a relatively uniform mixture of more recent critters mixed in with earlier critters, we would have to step back and look at the current TOE and it would have to be revised to explain the evidence seen.But that would not advance Biblical Creationism or a Young Earth. To do that you must first put forward better models and your models must explain the observed universe more successfully than the existing and competing ones.If you believe in either the YEC position of Biblical Creationism you must put forth scientific models that explain what is seen.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

... as so does Jar. Excellent.I read a number of complaints by creationists at EvC that no 'one study' or 'one fact' exists that will bring down the theory of evolution if they can overturn it. They complain that thousands of peer-reviewed studies exist, that each study seems to depend on another, that researchers 'make assumptions' based on previous studies, and that to attack the whole thing is a challenge of overwhelming proportions.This is an accurate assessment of the situation, as Jar observes. But what creationists characterize as a rigged game is really just overwhelming evidence. The situation is exactly what one expects from a successful theory. A sound theory not only explains what you discover, it predicts what you will discover. It gives scientists a great deal to discuss.I would run into the same problem if I tried to overturn Plate Tectonic Theory. What is the 'one study' or the 'one fact' I would attack? Plate tectonic theory links studies of mountain formation, lunar geology, seafloor spreading, fossil ecosystems, earth's magnetosphere and a host of other things. It has been validated by discoveries in all these areas and it helps predict and explain new discoveries.You would have the same problem if you wanted to overturn the Germ Theory of Disease. Where is the 'one article' or 'one fact' you would attack? Good luck!The ubiquity is normal. This is what happens when a scientific theory succeeds.A theory can still be falsified, though. You just have to get busy on the research. And be right.I have two requests of creationists:1. Don't complain here about the way evolutionary theory enjoys 'monolithic support' from scientists, then go out and repeat the canard that scientists are embroiled in 'controversy' over it. Tell the truth. If support for evolutionary theory looks monolithic to you, fairly or unfairly, say so. To everybody.2. Don't complain that creationism never gets a chance. Its golden moment arrived a generation ago. A single discovery could have falsified the entire theory of evolution. That moment came with the beginning of genetic mapping. The thing creationism said we would find was not there. The thing evolutionary theory said we would find was there. Again.The better theory won. That's what better theories do.

---

Archer

How clever of you to take an example of the unfalsifiability of the ToE and turn it into a virtue.

Of course I did no such thing. For reference, folk can read Message 26 to see what I actually said.The TOE can be falsified and you have been given examples of what might do that. In fact, it is highly likely and has already happened that the TOE has been shown to be wrong, and has been revised to explain the new observations. That is the way knowledge as opposed to fantasy works.The point is that revising current theories do not add weight or support to either ID, YEC or Biblical Creationist positions. So far none of them explain what is seen.If you hold out any hope of ID or YEC or Biblical Creationism ever being taken seriously, you will have to place models on the table that explain in very great detail ALL of the observations better than the current models.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Faith writes: 'Wait til next year' is not a theory, and all the facts are never in.The mapping of the genome was a watershed moment. Evolutionary theory predicted what we would find. It was there. Creationists had made predictions, too. Nothing came of it.Believe as you will. But does it make sense to get angry at others for their confidence in an idea that really does the job?

---

Archer