[Fester Chugabrew]

If what you claim is true, there is no way to investigate a crime . . .

We're not talking about a crime. We're talking about the big bang and all of history. It cannot be empirically tested, i.e. repeated and directly observed. Neither can a crime for that matter. That is why courts are needed to sort out the true from the false and often end up arriving at wrong conclusions despite the evidence.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"We're not talking about a crime. We're talking about the big bang and all of history."

They all require the same kind of forensic methodology.

"It cannot be empirically tested, i.e. repeated and directly observed."

The theories can and have been tested, repeatedly. Just as you don't have to directly observe a crime and repeat it to be able to gather objective evidence and test different hypotheses about what happened, one doesn;t have to repeat the Big Bang or the specific evolution of life to be able to test theories about them.

"That is why courts are needed to sort out the true from the false and often end up arriving at wrong conclusions despite the evidence."

Nobody says it's a perfect means of acquiring knowledge; it's just the only one available. The methodology that is used in a court to establish guilt is the same as that used to investigate all unique historical events. If what you say is true, that there is no way to test claims about the past, then there is no way to know ANYTHING that has happened in the past. We can't repeat past events nor can we observe them directly.

Luckily, only you have this odd view of what testability means.

[ThinkDifferent]

Neither can a crime for that matter. That is why courts are needed to sort out the true from the false and often end up arriving at wrong conclusions despite the evidence.

And despite their imperfections we actually do use courts and evidence, rather than seeing whether suspects float or sink, or asking God to smite the guilty. Why do you suppose this is?