Yes, because they're falsified."
Or because they are untestable at the time (such as when atoms were hypothesized) Your implication that a hypothesis that cannot be tested must be untrue is patently incorrect.
I assume you mean by falsified that you mean they are disproven... am I incorrect in this? Otherwise, I do not know how you can falsify a hypothesis.. DATA and EVIDENCE can be falsified, but how do you misrepresent your own hypothesis?
Okay, good point. A hypothesis must be testable IN PRINCIPLE. But you're right, it may not be technologically feasible to test a hypothesis at a given point in time.In that case, it remains a hypothesis until the technology is developed.
But that's not the case with ID. It is not testable even IN PRINCIPLE.
Your implication that a hypothesis that cannot be tested must be untrue is patently incorrect.
I never made that assertion. A hypothesis must be testable to be considered scientific. If the technology does not yet exist to test it, then you have to wait. But at least you know that some day, it probably will be testable.
This is not true of ID.
I assume you mean by falsified that you mean they are disproven... am I incorrect in this?
Yeah. Please tell me, what data could possibly falsfify ID? And you don't have to limit yourself to data that it is technologically feasible to gather today. Data that plausiblely could be gathered someday is good enough.