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

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.

Evolutionary claims have not been validated by genome mapping? You're kidding, right? Given the knowledge that DNA was a carrier of genetic material, the prediction of ToE was automatically that closely related species should have DNA more similar than two more distantly related species should (ie if A and B are closely related and C is distantly related to both A and B, A and B should have DNA more similar to eachother than would A to C). This prediction has so far held true. This has validated "Evolutionary claims".But you are right about one thing. Creationist claims were not validated.

Faith, you are seriously confused about what science is. Falsifiablility has nothing to do with whether a theory describes an event that was in the past, the present or the future. Being falsifiable means that it is possible to show that a theory is wrong. ToE IS falsifiable because new observations and theories are able to falsify it. It can even be fully discarded provided you supply a better scientific theory.As to the other topic of this thread (ie would a falsification of ToE lead to the advancement of biblical creationism), the answer is NO, for two reasons. (1) In science, a theory "advances" as you provide positive evidence in support of it. Merely "poking holes" in a current theory will not mean that your alternative is somehow magically accepted. (2) The existence of an omnipotent supernatural magical being creating everything we see is unfalsifiable, making the whole concept unscientific.(PS. I'm sure I posted something like this a bit earlier. It seems to have magically disappeared.)

You really didn't understand what I just wrote up there, did you? To completely reject ToE you need to provide a scientific explanation that better explains the diversity of life we have today. Therefore, I can hardly give an example, since I would then have falsified ToE (and be on my way to Stockholm to collect a very prestigious prize). Again: you can reject a theory by supplying a new scientific one that better explains current observations.

I'm having trouble understanding how falsifying the semi-conservative model of DNA replication could possibly falsify ToE. I'm also having trouble understanding what the same model has to do with the statement "That is, in sexually reproducing organisms, half come from one and half from the other." to do. Care to elaborate?

ToE is a theory adhering to scientific philosophy. As such, it is falsifiable. Instead of making claims such as this, why don't you try to adress the examples that have already been given in this thread that would falsify ToE (including the way it is possible to reject ToE by supplying a new scientific theory that better explains the diversity of life we have today).

What you are in fact saying is, then, that there is no such thing as science. ALL science is based on naturalism, don't you know! This is irrelevant, of course. Since ToE can be shown to be wrong, it is falsifiable. While stamements like these are disturbing, they also amuse me. They are also off topic. Gosh, barring the "supposedly", I can actually agree with this. There is still a lot to be explained. But that's why we do science, isn't it?

Hughes has been repeating the old creationist canard that mutations can't add information quite a few times now. It would be nice to start a new thread on the topic so that he/she actually has to defend that position rather than actually just continue with what is an obvious falsehood. Sigh. How many times does one have to rewrite somethings. You can falsify ToE to the extent that it is totally rejected by providing a scientific theory that better explains the diversity of life we have on this planet. This should be easy since, as you say, there really isn't a mountain of evidence supporting the current theory anyway. Go on. Propose a new scentific theory. Get yourself a Nobel prize.