[BroJoeK]

MrB: "Really? The theory of evolution as an explanation of origins is repeatable and falsifiable?"

Oh, dear...
Let's begin here: the word "evolution" is used loosely today to refer to most anything -- hair styles are said to "evolve", cars "evolve", even the Universe itself is described as "evolving".
In politics we are said to favor "evolution not revolution", etc., etc.
None of these uses refer to the basic scientific theory of evolution, which has two factual components: 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.

Confirmed evolution theory begins when "life" begins and describes how species first acclimate and adapt, then modify and eventually evolve to fill various environmental niches.

But there are no confirmed theories of how life first began, there are only several different unconfirmed hypotheses, ranging from abiogenesis to panspermia.

For a more detailed discussion of all these ideas, I could again refer you to Young Sun, Early Earth and the Origins of Life -- see post #77 above.

[MrB]

Ah, and there’s the rub -

when defending “evolution”, the evos point to observable change and avoid the man behind the curtain that they conflate and extend the theory to include - origins. Common Descent from “simple” lifeforms - exclusion of the Creator.

The whole point of Evolution is to exclude the Creator.
Evos will deny it when you pin them down, but that IS the purpose of the apologia of the theory.

Creationists believe in “change” as well - adaptation to environmental pressure (natural selection). But the difference is the recognition that this change is possible due to abilities inherent in the created creatures, not added through a (more often than not) destructive mutation.