1. The postulate can't be observed.
2. The postulate can't be repeated for experimental verification.
3. The postulate must withstand a falsifiability test, or an experiment must be conceived the failure of which would disprove the postulate.
as your theroy doesnt meet the criteria to even be a theroy you have great chutzpah to believe in it.
1. The postulate can't be observed.
Sure it can. I've observed evolution occurring.
2. The postulate can't be repeated for experimental verification.
Sure it can. Hint for the clueless: *Verifications* need to be repeatable, not specific *events*. We don't have to actually be able to repeatedly move continents around in order to be able to repeatedly verify plate tectonics.
Events like the specific movements of the continents over the past several hundred million years -- or the evolution of modern life forms -- leave countless traces of their passage, which can be *repeatedly* verified in different ways in order to verify that they did, indeed, occur, and by what processes.
3. The postulate must withstand a falsifiability test, or an experiment must be conceived the failure of which would disprove the postulate.
Of course -- like this: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent. Be sure to read the sections on "Potential Falsifications", as well as the page on the scientific method, since you seem quite confused about how it actually works.
as your theroy doesnt meet the criteria to even be a theroy you have great chutzpah to believe in it.
As it *does* meet the criteria of a scientific theory, *and* has made huge numbers of specific predictions which have been found to be accurate, *and* passed vast numbers of falsification tests with flying colors, you have great chutzpah in making false accusations based on your lack of knowledge on this topic.
Are you sure you know what in the heck you're talking about? Because it sure doesn't look like it from here.