So, let's have your cut. If it isn't falsifiable, it isn't science, right?
Ahhh. Timmy. Sorry I don't remember you, but you all look so alike. I'll give you credit, however. You have so far danced away in a manner that falsifies my prediction. (See my previous post.)
But, tell me? If there is no fossil record, why do I have those links which bore you so? And if my links bore you, what do Ichneumon's do?
Let us use our own words, rather than constantly link to the rants of others.
In my own words, what you said isn't true, as shown in the links.
What would falsify Darwinism?
Has no one ever said, "A Precambrian rabbit?"
Note that her answer doesn't even make sense as it would, perhaps, prove creation, but would do nothing to falsify Darwinism.
Her answer is not very good. Evolution is the tight hypothesis. There is a predicted tree of life. All kinds of life forms would violate the scenario and are not predicted. I mentioned this in the link you're too bored to read. A non-reptilian intermediate between amphibians and birds. A non-land-animal intermediate between fish and whales. You can imagine all kinds of things "off the tree" but you can't find any.
That's a fulfilled prediction. We have probably 100 times the fossil record Darwin had. He predicted that all future finds would further outline the tree of life traceable in his day. That's pretty good, but creationists never seem to give the man credit. Creationists scoffed then about the gaps. Oddly, they still do that although we've probably put at least one or two specimens in every gap Darwin had and no doubt a lot more in most cases.
What would falsify "You can't make me see-ism?"