[NukeMan]

"If there are sceintific truths which are "untestable," could you please name one."

For one thing, most science makes the assumption that the laws of nature do not vary significantly over space and time: nature is uniform. Secondly, you are using a variant of logical positivism as the criterion of truth (you must be able to verify in some way your hypothesis, or at least falsify others). But the verifiability criterion itself cannot be verified.

[Hank Kerchief]

But the verifiability criterion itself cannot be verified.

Technically, it is not a criterion, it is a definition. This is what is meant by proof, a, b, c, and d, and a is, the hypothesis must be able to be proved by a test that it can only pass if it is correct.

You want to use a different definition, fine. Please tell us what it is, though, before expecting those of us who want some a reason for believing something is true, to do so.

I think you also miss the point of falsifiability. All is says is, if you give something a test, any kind of test, and it can pass the test, whether it is right or wrong, the test doesn't test anything. It doesn't even say you have to give anything a test.

Hank