falsifying the idea of falsification

[downbeatplumb]

Your a bit mixed up there buddy, let me help.

We all believe in science including yourself. Hard science like chemistry, thermodynamics, motion physics, medicine.
We all rely on these sciences every day. They are applied or practical sciences.

What you are skeptical with is soft science. Theory of evolution, cosmology, climate change.
These are theoretical sciences. They operate on a far lower standard of evidence and are often driven by peoples beliefs.

I wonder what makes you think that?
Evolution is one of the best supported if not the best supported theory there is. Certainly better supported than much of physics. And of course evolution is used in medicines.

Karl Popper is one of my favorite sciences. 
His "philosophy of science" is more of a process in determining real science from pseudoscience, i think he may have even invented that term

He basically says that if a claim cannot be tested (falsifiable) then it isn't scientific
We cannot test if there is or isn't a God, therefore it's not scientific to claim either

Why cant we test for a god?

The only reason I can think of is because they aren't a real thing.

Big Popper was a huge critic of the theory of evolution his whole life. He called it a pseudoscience and tautology among other things
Only later before he died did he say he accepted the theory though he never believed it or considered it to be scientific

Well he was wrong. It is scientific.

ToE is a hypothesis or a philosophical theory, not a scientific one.

I encourage u to look at the subject a bit deeper. 
Karl Popper really developed this skeptical way of approaching science which has really been lost, allowing several pseudosciences to emerge

What do you consider pseudoscience? I am starting to think you will lump some well established sciences in there.

An excellent identifier of a possible pseudoscience is if there is disagreement that spans over a decade or two

I find that a bit dubious .