Changes

''You've admitted it yourself! As for your exception, again, you are basically saying that the only thing that could possibly falsify it is something that we already know not to be the case.''

''You've admitted it yourself! As for your exception, again, you are basically saying that the only thing that could possibly falsify it is something that we already know not to be the case.''

But this is still a valid grounds to establish falsifiability.  The test of falsifiability isn't whether a theory can be falsified in light of other things we know, or even if it can be falsified with a plausible test.  To establish falsifiability, we only need establish that a hypothetical test or observation

But this is still a valid grounds to establish falsifiability.  The test of falsifiability isn't whether a theory can be falsified in light of other things we know, or even if it can be falsified with a plausible test.  To establish falsifiability, we only need establish that a hypothetical test or observation exists in the realm of logical possibility that would disprove the particular formulation of the theory we're evaluating, not logistical possibility.

exists in the realm of logical possibility that would disprove the particular formulation of the theory we're evaluating, not logistical possibility.

 

''Again, my point is that a proposed falsification of evolution was put to the test, evolution failed, but the failure is rationalized away. So why couldn't any future failures be rationalized away? You've already admitted that they would be''

''Again, my point is that a proposed falsification of evolution was put to the test, evolution failed, but the failure is rationalized away. So why couldn't any future failures be rationalized away? You've already admitted that they would be''

''"6-day creation 6,000 years ago is eminently falsifiable;...": Thank you for agreeing that young-Earth creationism is falsifiable, and therefore should not be classified as inherently unscientific.  

''"6-day creation 6,000 years ago is eminently falsifiable;...": Thank you for agreeing that young-Earth creationism is falsifiable, and therefore should not be classified as inherently unscientific.  

    "...the discovery of anything over 6000 years old logically falsifies this.": Assuming the dates are correct, but that's a separate issue.  

"...the discovery of anything over 6000 years old logically falsifies this.": Assuming the dates are correct, but that's a separate issue.  

    "The reason creationism is unfalsifiable is because it relies on supernatural causes.": Huh? What has the cause got to do with its falsifiability? Falsifiability is, according to you, based on being able to test predictions made by the theory, not according to its causes.''

"The reason creationism is unfalsifiable is because it relies on supernatural causes.": Huh? What has the cause got to do with its falsifiability? Falsifiability is, according to you, based on being able to test predictions made by the theory, not according to its causes.''

The theory that the earth was created by some natural process over 6 days 6000 years ago is falsifiable.  It's falsifiable because of the dates;  they are the proposition that can be tested.  The theory that the earth was created by an omnipotent being such as God is unfalsifiable, because it allows the possibility that said being changed the properties of things to the point that measurement is meaningless.  Tools like radiocarbon dating work because we understand the decay of matter as a predictable, natural process.  If we add an omnipotent being to a theory in any field, the result of ANY test or measurement becomes inconclusive because said being could manipulate the results in ways that were impossible to detect.  For that matter, why are you bothering to argue that creationism is falsifiable if you think falsifiability is illusory?

The theory that the earth was created by some natural process over 6 days 6000 years ago is falsifiable.  It's falsifiable because of the dates;  they are the proposition that can be tested.  The theory that the earth was created by an omnipotent being such as God is unfalsifiable, because it allows the possibility that said being changed the properties of things to the point that measurement is meaningless.  Tools like radiocarbon dating work because we understand the decay of matter as a predictable, natural process.  If we add an omnipotent being to a theory in any field, the result of ANY test or measurement becomes inconclusive because said being could manipulate the results in ways that were impossible to detect.  For that matter, why are you bothering to argue that creationism is falsifiable if you think falsifiability is illusory?