Is ID falsifiable by any kind of experiment?

Hence the use of the word "tentative". This is how science works. It seems that you reject science in general.

You prove again that you are noob. Science is not flawless. That is fact. If you refuse to accept that, then you are noob.We use the tools that we have. We should be aware of its strengths and weaknesses. You are such an extremist fool who fails to understand this.

What other way is there to do science???All of science is making predictions and testing those predictions with observations. That's how science works. Do you reject the scientific method?

I reject unsubstantiated claims that you make in the name of science. And I reject your misrepresentation of science.

So you reject the findings of science?

Like what??? What misrepresentations???

Einstein used thought experiments. Physicists build mathematical models for quantum fields and particle interactions. Are those methods not science?

Those thought experiments were used to make predictions which were later tested by experiments. And then they test them against observations. Those are just part of the scientific method. What you are describing is the process of producing predictions. Experiments are then used to test those predictions. However, you have already shown that you could care less about testing theories. You don't think a match between experimental results and predictions means anything.

Can I ask; are you eleven years old? Because that would explain a lot. I have already agreed that science is not flawless you strange person. This is exactly what everyone has been trying to tell you. We use the tools we have. The tool we have for understanding the cosmos is the scientific method. I suggest that we use that tool.Do you have a better tool for understanding the world around us? If so, feel free to lay it out. Until then, the scientific method is all we've got and all you've got and that involves comparing predictions against observations wether you like it or not.Mutate and Survive

You made claims that your model is correct because it is best fit. You seem to forget that a model is usually an estimate of some unknown. So even if you followed all the correct steps, which I doubt, it's still only a model.Science does not work the way you present it here. We use models, and there is nothing wrong with that. But you take it too far, claiming that the models are absolute truth or something. They are not!

In the scientific sense, they are correct. This is always meant to be a tentative conclusion that can be changed by further evidence. What else is there in science? I have never made any claim that any scientific model is absolute truth.You can't even admit that a match between observations and a model is evidence for the model.

I have nothing against using models and testing as tool. I have something against people drawing false conclusions from it.

Yes, you do. You call it "bad logic". You reject the scientific method. You can't even admit that a match between observations and scientific models is evidence for those models. All you do is call it bad logic without ever showing what that bad logic is. You have this really backwards belief that if we don't know something to be absolutely true then we know nothing. That's ridiculous.

Good. You might like to try testing the predictions of the ToE against observations then. What false conclusions are people drawing from it? That the notion that observations which fit a given theory are evidence in favour of that theory? Is that a "false conclusion"?No-one is claiming that just because a theory fits a certain piece of evidence it must thereafter be considered absolute 100% unalterable inviolate truth. That would be idiotic hubris.Mutate and Survive

Wrong. I reject your conclusions. Not the method of using models and predictions as one of the tools.