I've understood what falsifiability is really well. You appearently have not. And you seem to be terribly inconsistent. You link this whole concept, and when you realzie you have not understood it, and it actually goes against what you were arguing, you try to discredit both it and me. Also, evolution CAN be falsified:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution#Unfalsifiability

There goes your argument.

But even when there is no sign that your theory is right and its unfalsifiable it still doesnt mean its wrong.

Really now? This theory would be just baseless guessing, which obviously holds no scientific value.

Religion didnt invent god its the same as saying the first human who used fire invented fire.

Bad analogy, as it's obvious that fire exists in nature. There's no proof god exists outside of human imagination. A more proper analogy would be religion invented god the same way people invented computers.

Besides even tens of thousends of years ago humans buried their dead instead of leting them lie were they died. So long before there was any religion people had some sense of afterlife and probably god. God is a fundamental question. Everywere where there is intelligent life there is the question how did it all start.

Burying dead bodies doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the afterlife. People started (erroneously) believing in the ideea of an afterlife when they started practicing agriculture, and they practiced burials way before that. Also, I don't see how believing in the existence of an afterlife proves that such a thing exists, when it's obviously just wishful thinking, and the incapability to accept human mortality. And god isn't a question, it's a made-up answer to a question that humans can't answer. And, other than humans, what other intelligent life you've seen ask such questions? Do dolphins ask such questions? Have you ever met aliens?

To the article i could pick other ones but the point was the survey not the article. Scientists are less inclined to believe in god that doesnt mean they cant because it would be unscientific.

People can believe whatever they want. Scientists generally try to avoid believing in things they know are not true, unlike most people. They still are people though.

Lets recap falsifiability doesnt determin if something is wrong or right. Meaning something unfalsifiable can still be right. What it does determin is if scientists can work with it or not. Unless the concept is backed up by things that indicate its correct (like fossils). Even without indication a theory could still be right.

You're recaping your own misuderstanding of this concept? What good will that do?

Thus scientist never say: "God is not real from a scientific standpoint" Because it would be stupid to say that there is nothing to back that claim up. And there never will be. Thus Scientists are allowed to believe in god without discrediting science.

Actually, scientists do say that. Heck, even one of the christian scientists mentioned in the article you provided says that. And it's already been  that god is an unfalsifiable concept, meaning that it can't possibly be considered true, from a logical/scientific standpoint.

Hopefully this was clear enough this time. I am practically saying the same thing over and over again. Besides do you think I dont know what I am talking about ? Do you think I would bring this stuff up when I am not sure that I am right ?

What is quite clear is that  you have no ideea what you're talking about. Your posts essentially proved that.

To be honest I have no idea how the big bang happened, or it is really was a start. Time goes funny near singularities. In another thread about black holes someone explained to me how it would be possible for black holes to be portals without our universe ever noticing any loss of mass. While reaching a black hole time stretches to infinity. Before you reach it from your perspective, our universe will be in infinitely in the past. Maybe something similar applies to the big bang.

My question about free will is not whether we have it or not, but how can you prove it. What's the difference between you choosing between an orange or a mango based on your current inner state, and a computer choosing between 2 alternatives based on a set of internal rules. You can think you could have chosen the alternative, but you didn't.

Without the added benefit of memory humans react pretty much the same way, when faced with the same stimuli. Even with memory it still happens. For example I made some home videos of our 1 year old son, and while we're watching it, my wife and I make the exact same statements at the same time as captured on the video. It's creepy. Sure the next time we watch we remeber and resist the urge but it's still there.

Hmm there is no point in arguing with you its complety useless you seem awfully sure and since I dont know what I am talking about post all you said in a science forum lets see what the folks over there say.

You are not able to grasp the concept of falsifiability I never said and noone else either on this planet that it determines whats true or not. It determins if science can work with it. Something unfalsifiable can still be theoretically right.

If god exists he existed before so my analogy was right. The greeks gave it a name way before but they didnt invent atoms just because they named it.

To burials it would be unnecessary to give the dead personal belongings without thinking they might use it later.

I am sorry for you that you have to twist things you dont fully understand in a way to make it fit in your static world view. I understand people dont like to be wrong but going as far as changing reality to make it seem like they are right?

I truly hope you will get more informed about Falsifiability.

Besides evolution is unfalsifiable the main problem is the interpretation you can interprete it in a way that makes it hard to say iif its unfalsifiable. A lot of creationists do to declare it as unscientific which ofcourse dont work because its plausible:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Disproving_evolution

But THAT DOESNT MAKE IT WRONG EVOLUTION IS RIGHT.

What your problem is is that your conclusion you make is valid but the argument with via Falsifiability is wrong. You can t say God cant be true because you cant falsify him. Because thats factually wrong Falsifiability doesnt determin if something is wrong or right.

HOWEVER you can say this:

"An unfalsifiable theory makes no predictions. There?s nothing you could ever observe that would be inconsistent with it. In other words, the world where the theory is true appears exactlyidentical to the world where the theory is false. The theory tells you nothing about the world, and nothing in the world tells you about the theory. So, there is no reason to believe."

There is no reason to believe, note on atheism forums most people would never argue like you did because its logically wrong.

"Really now? This theory would be just baseless guessing, which obviously holds no scientific value."

IYes its baseless guessing and holds NO scientific value I said that million times by using the term unscientific. You cant say if its wrong or right THATS THE WHOLE POINT OF FALSIFIABILITY. God CAN still exist there is just no reason to believe in him same as there is no reason NOT TO believe in him. If there would be a reason not to believe in him then it means god was falsified but you cant do that because he is not falsifiable and out of reach for science thus it allows scientists to believe in god.

I don't twist anything to fit my worldview, you do, as evidence by the link you provided, which essentially says that evolution CAN be falsified, not that it's accepted because it's 'plausible'. Honestly, do you even read what you link? And that's  not the only thing wrong with this massive and horrendeous post. IOut of  all the people I've ever talked to on this site, you seem to be by far the least deserving of any attention. Have a nice life.

Nice life to you too.