> God exist. Which means it physically possible for Him to form a flagellum from scratch, right?
Your first sentence there is not a verifiable one. Thus your second sentence is meaningless.
> If you come across a clay pot will you assume it is a created artifact or an evolved one?
This is irrelevant, since clay pots are incapable of reproduction and mutation.
> The most famous dinosaur of all time -- the brontosaurus -- never existed.
{boggle}
Watever you say, Chief. If you want to assume that an error with some bones means that the bones themselves never existed... well, ahve fun with those shadows on your cave wall.
It's as verifiable as the evolution of the TTSS into a flagellum. Yet you accept the one merely on the basis that it has not yet been disproved, but not the other. Why do you think that's reasonable?
The most famous dinosaur of all time -- the brontosaurus -- never existed. . . . Watever you say, Chief. If you want to assume that an error with some bones means that the bones themselves never existed
Of course the bones existed. The assumption based on those bones, however, is erroneous.
These are all "non-verifiable" statements in the context that are using for veacity.
So too is the statement "There are no gods, there is no God." It is even less possible to demonstrate.
I'll skip Godel's theorem today, except to note that Truth is all about perception, an acceptance of that perception by the consciousness. Restated: there are truths that in any formal system that cannot be verified inside of that formal system.