So then there is no simple test that falsifies evolution, much less God.
Yes, an observation that falsifies a basic component of evolution such as a life form without polynucleotides as a genetic material would do it (despite your protests to the contrary). My point was that falsifications of details of a theory don't necessarily lead to a falsification of the whole theory. Hence, a falsification of the idea that mammals and birds evolved separately from reptiles would only falsify our modern theory of evolution. It would not lead to a rejection of the basic idea that all life evolved from a common ancestor. Given enough falsifications of the details, however, and the basic idea would be called into question. I have maintained that to acheive scientific status, ID simply must make some falsifiable prediction which limits the range of possible observations. An ID theory that states that the designer could not possibly have designed organisms with eyes that have a blind spot, for example, is a falsifiable hypothesis, even though falsifying this hypothesis wouldn't falsify the idea of ID. I am still waiting for you or any other ID'er to provide even ONE such observation that wouldn't be possible given some specific hypothesis. I think it's that ID'ers fear that too many of their branches will be cut off and that they'll never gain any credibility. So long as they keep it unfalsifiable, they can fool the nonscientific population into thinking that they actually have some scientific merit. If they're actually falsified enough, they'll lose credibility even among the nonscientific population. They've already lost credibility in the mainstream scientific community for going this long without any testable hypotheses.