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

In the thread "Is there really such a thing as a beneficial mutation?" Faith claims: The message where Faith makes that assertion.Is that a valid assertion?I believe that there are many things that might falsify the TOE, although since it is so well supported by so many different brances of science and so much evidence I honestly cannot imagine many things short of the repeated observation of "Special Creation", a lamb giving birth to a bird or a platapus giving birth to cow that would qualify.Some potential things though that might cause a major reexamination of the TOE might be:If we found a whole bunch of anomalous fossils, for example started to regularly find primate fossils in an earlier layer, say Cambrian, and not just the primate fossils but flowering plants and grasses in the Cambrian layers all over the world, that would definitely call things into question. But would that advance the position of classic YEC Biblical Creationism? IMHO, no, not really. The weight of evidence from all other sources still falsifies the idea of a Young Earth or special creation.If on the other hand, we found a genetic indicator that was present in every living species that pointed to a population bottleneck that happened at the same time for every species, along with a single geological flood layer that could be identified world-wide that could also be dated to the same time as the genetic indicator and also a testable model to explain the distribution of unique species of plants and animals to places such as Australia and Micronesia and also a model that explained the hyper-macro-super-colossal evolution that would explain all the species seen on earth and also if all of those things pointed to a period in time about 4000-5000 years ago and were supported by multiple repeated observations and by several different branches of study, then it might be reasonable to reexamine classic Biblical Creationism as it relates to the flood. However, YEC positions would still be falsified based on all of the other weights of evidence and it would NOT support any theological implications. The flood might be in but it would add no weight to the GODDIDIT position.The important points to discuss though are "Should the TOE be falsified, would that lend any credence or support to ideas such as Biblical Creationism?"; and "What would falsify the TOE?"Edited by jar, : revise topic title and minor editEdited by jar, : expand examples

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hey jar,I suggest a headline change. Maybe, "Is evolution falsifiable?" or something that reflects the actual topic to discuss.What forum do you want, Biological Evolution?

Your OP is a bit thin but worst is the topic title. Fix maybe?

Title edited

title edited, open to suggestions on the content

Much better title. Since AdminNosy doesn't like the content I'll leave it to you two to work that out and he can promote.

I'd suggest a listing of a few of the potential falsifications.Then for each a reason why it does or does not have anything to do with creationism.It could be promoted as is but will get off to a better start with some help.I won't be here for a few hours now.

Okay, revised yet again. Take another look and as always, open to any suggestions for improvement.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

What I find puzzling, is when creationists assert both

The theory of evolution is false; and

The theory of evolution is not falsifiable.

​

What can they be thinking?

Two breaths, two thoughts.No other connection.

Makes me wonder if they even know what false and falsiafiable means.In regards to the topic, I would argue for numerous smaller positive evidences that may tip TOE out of its position. For example, one thing that could help theological creationism would be demonstrated rapid phenotypical modifaction of higher order animals and plants. If they could find a mechanism that would support TOE, but by the same token it would bring 'creationism' closer to reach. At that point they'd have a mechanism that could support the hypermacroevolution of 'kinds'.Or if they could generate a physical model of the earth that wouldn't kill everything on the planet for the flood, and they could still have a flood. Also if we could figure out where those flood waters disappeared to that would be nice to.Or if they have positive demonstration of natural processes that disrupt geological layers without leaving any traces of disruption that would be another one (or methods to date it). This would bring to question the validity of dating any of the rocks because there would be no reliable way to test how old the rocks are, via superposition or anything. Like if they could demonstrate that methods for dating rocks are completely wrong and if they could generate a more accurate method or the correct method.Or maybe if they could calculuate the heat of formation of the earth, now that one would be interesting, because then they'd have to figure out how long it would take for the earth to cool down, and bleed out the heat so that its cool enough to even support life.

Well if they could explain those things it really wouldn't help their position.The only way that I could see even positive evidence that there was a world wide flood that could be correlated to a genetic indicator that appeared in EVERY living species and where both pointed to the same time period AND they also came up with the testable models to explain the hyper-macro-super-evolution of species afterwards as well as models that explain the specieces distribution we see today, but then could also demonstrate that such a flood was totally impossible would it support the Biblical Creationist position.If they can explain where the water came from or how the flood happened without killing off all life on the earth, then it doesn't support their position. If it's possible then it is just another blip on the historic scale like the Chicxulub impact.Edited by jar, : change meteor to impact

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That would depend on how ToE were falsified. A clear proof of creationism might falsify ToE, and would surely provide credence to creationism. However, such a proof seems unlikely.If ToE were to be falsified, it is most likely that what would be shown is evidence that is contrary to some technical aspect of the processes assumed to be responsible for evolution. That kind of evidence would not prove creationism, and might merely require that ToE be modified to fit the new evidence.

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.