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

That's no puzzle at all. We know it's false because we know what the truth is, but we can't prove it because the ToE is unfalsifiable.It's unfalsifiable because it's mostly hypothetical scenarios treated as fact.

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.

Not all creationists denied that.

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

Of course. The contents of the Bible are meant to be believed, not proved. No, it wouldn't even give us any supporting evidence. The ToE can swallow up anything, BECAUSE it is unfalsifiable.Just consider jar's answer to the same post you are answering. That's how the ToE rationalization machine works.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You see our hypothesis in action in our answers on threads like this. What's actually needed is for evos to recognize the sense we are making.

If one believes something, one believes it is the truth.

Well, let us review the sequence here.When I said the Bible is to be believed, you responded that therefore I would no longer try to prove anything based on it, as if the word "belief" were some magic formula that discredited it.So I answered that if one believes something, and that includes you, one believes it is the truth.And I'd say further that if you believe it is the truth, then you treat it as the truth and you argue for it as the truth against those who don't believe it.EVERYTHING is based on belief. You believe in evolution although I'm sure you don't know even 1% about it and mostly rely on what you've heard.Same with believing the Bible. I believe it is the truth and I defend it as the truth.Nobody believes ANYTHING except what they are prepared to defend as the truth. THE truth. WHAT REALLY HAPPENED. THAT kind of truth. That's the kind of truth you ascribe to the ToE and it's the same kind of truth I ascribe to the Bible. This is what we are arguing about, me trying to convince you, you trying to convince me. This is what debate is about.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's not quite right. We were talking about what can be PROVED, and I said the past can't be. You asked if the Bible can be and I said no, it is to be believed not proved. But believing it is knowing it to be true. So really what I'm saying is that the Bible is really great evidence for the past, whereas by comparison nothing empirical is reliable evidence at all. I think there's still a misundersatnding here. I don't see any contradiction. I'm saying that things about the past can be known through a reliable written report, and certainly through the Bible which is the most reliable written report ever, as opposed to physical evidence. This reflects what was demonstrated in the hypothetical case of human and dinosaur fossils being found together, that can be rationalized to fit into the ToE just fine, as can all kinds of finds of that sort. Since it's all in the past, all explanations are quite rubbery. There is no way to arrive at a reliably true explanation.

The point was that the ToE as a whole would not be challenged. You do understand that creationism challenges it as a whole.

Niether the Koran nor Grimm's makes claims about the past. The Bible does. So does the Book of Mormon, so go ahead and believe it if you want, but it doesn't mention the Flood or the Kinds.

I'm not at all confused. That's the definition I'm using. The whole ToE appears to me to be nothing but imaginative constructions of the past that cannot be verified or falsified, meaning shown to be wrong. Particular points may be falsifiable but not the theory itself. Example is that if a dinosaur and human were found together that wouldn't be taken as proof the ToE is wrong, despite what jar is claiming; that is, it wouldn't be taken as falsification of the idea that all living things descended from different living things. All that would happen is that the current ideas about the particular timing of dinosaurs and humans would shift. Well, maybe. But so far that is only an assertion. Come up with an example that can't be rationalized away; one that really does undermine the theory itself. Maybe it's been done but I simply haven't seen it. I just know this one about dinosaurs and humans isn't going to do it.

If we can prove that there is a genetic stopping point to speciation that would do it.

This is accepted science by creationists. It doesn't favor the ToE. This would be accomplished by showing that there is a genetic stopping point to speciation. However, both variation and natural selection are accepted science by creationists, just not the idea that they are an open-ended process.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.