Lets put the theory that a giant asteroid killed the dinosaurs into the equation. Is it repeatedly testable? Why use a different standard for things we assume are correct than things we don't?
Well, who doubts that theory?
Lots of scientists doubt the asteroid impact theory, actually.
The asteroid impact theory is one of several possible explanations. There is repeatably testable evidence, here it is:
The asteroid theory is one of many, but yes, you can dig down to layers of rock from the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary,
everywhere on Earth, and find levels of Iridium 30 times higher than anywhere else. Those levels of iridium can only come from two places, from a space rock or from deep down near the Earth's core, deeper than most volcanic rock. If you go anywhere on Earth and dig down to that level, the iridium is there. The entire Earth go sprinkled with it at some point between the Cretaceous/Tertiary periods. You can test this repeatedly and anywhere on the planet.
No, we can't whack the Earth repeatedly, but yes, you can repeatedly test for evidence.
Impact ejecta is also common in the Cretaceous/Tertiary layers. That's beads or lumps of melted rock. All over the planet. This can and has been repeatedly tested all over the world.
Shocked quartz, something that can only be generated by high-energy impacts or explosions, is common in the Cretaceous/Tertiary layers. Repeatedly testable.
The Yucatan peninsula crater is 150km wide at dates to that era. Big enough to cause that damage. Obviously there's only one of it, so no, you can't find more than one example.
The fossil record abruptly changes at the Cretaceous/Tertiary layers.
There are other theories, again. There is evidence that changes in plant life, when all the gymnosperm plants started giving out to the rapid growth of angiosperm plants. There's evidence that one sort of food went mostly away while another food became plentiful. A type of food that herbivorous dinosaurs couldn't eat. Veggie dinos - Veggies = No food for meaty dinos either. Rapid food chain issues.
There is also the theory that dinosaurs are still running around and flying around right now, and that they are now called "Birds".
Science isn't required to have certain answers. It is required to put forth as much evidence as it can to support a theory and see if it fits the model.
Since science is a topic, lets have an atheistic apologist explain how they can reconcile their beliefs with the big bang. I have yet to hear an atheist explain how they can believe in the big bang when it goes against one of the tenants of their belief system.
I am not an atheistic apologist.
Nevertheless, the "Big bang" is a slang phrase that has no particular meaning. The real deal in regards to the big bang is this - The universe is expanding. You can repeatably test this. Everywhere you look, every single piece of matter in the universe is shifted toward the red. The Doppler effect is repeatably testable. Things moving toward you visibly (Depending on relative speed) shift toward the color blue, things moving away shift toward the red. Everything in the universe is shifted toward the red.
This means that if you go back far enough in time, it is likely that everything in the universe came from a single point in space and has expanded outward and continues to do so.
That's all we know. Science makes NO claims about what happened
before that, how it happened, or what caused the rapid expansion.
The Big Bang model, or theory, is the prevailing cosmological theory of the early development of the universe. The theory purports to explain some of the earliest events in the universe. According to the theory, the universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state that expanded rapidly (a "Big Bang"). As there is little consensus among physicists about the origins of the universe, the Big Bang theory explains only that such a rapid expansion caused the young universe to cool and resulted in its present continuously expanding state.
If anyone claiming to use science as their toolset says anything other than "I don't know" in response to the question "Where did everything come from." they are full of shit. The same could be said even more strongly of a religious person. I don't know where the universe came from. Neither do you. I know that at one point it was itty bitty and got bigger. I don't know why. Neither do you.
Generally speaking, it is the religious person who claims they know for certain. The scientist of any worth never claims 100% knowledge.
Creationism is wrong. The world is billions of years old.
I have no idea what this means.