Example; if someone said a watermelon is blue on the inside, but turns red when you cut it open, how could you prove them wrong? How could they prove they're right?
You couldn't and they can't. There is no method available to confirm or disprove what was said about the watermelon.
I'll bite. You just cut open the watermelon and proved it wasn't blue. Logic seems not a strong point here.
Any theory that can not explain how to both validate and falsify its claims in this manner can not be taken seriously.
What kind of idiocy is this? Theories are based on numerous hypotheses. These can be proven or disproven but it is never up to the theory to explain how to validate or falsify the claims. Scientists validate or falsify the hypotheses. For example, Barry J. Marshall and J. Robin Warren overturned decades of medical thinking that peptic ulcers were primarily caused by stress and lifestyle. Instead they argued that it was mainly due to a bacteria named Helicobacter pylori. To prove, it they gave ulcer patients antibiotics and they were cured. For this, they won a Nobel Prize.
Unfortunately, Darwin never properly demonstrated how to falsify his theory
Neither did Newton, Galileo, Einstein, etc. No scientists is required to provide ways to falsify his theory. Faulty logic on your part. In fact, on the subject of Newton, his theory on gravitation was incomplete as it never fully described why Mercury wobbles. Yet it was accepted because it adequately described gravity for the most part. Einstein later refined Newton by showing that Newton's idea of gravity is a good approximation in situations of low mass and low speed (like on the Earth) whereas Einstein's General Theory of Relativity covered broader situations and adequately explained Mercury's orbit (and the rest of space-time).
which means evolution has not properly been proven, since it has never been demonstrated what the evidence does not suggest.
Only if you willing to ignore the collective work of many scientists in paleontology, biology, microbiology, genetics, etc.
So the following falsification method must be the perfect counter to Darwin's validation method
Again, faulty presupposition and logic on your part.
So one must demonstrate a method to prove beyond any doubt that in the event that evolution is not true, it can be shown to be such.
No you are creating unreasonable demands on a theory you don't like. By your logic, Newton's idea of gravity must be thrown out as well as atomic physics and relativity as they conflict with each other.
If the creation model is true, we can make verifiable predictions that disprove evolution.
Bill Nye said it best when he said in the debate that it would only take one fossil out of place to disprove evolution. So far no one has done it. By your logic, you're wrong then.
In order to demonstrate that the Creator is responsible for life and created life diversified to begin with, the word "kind" must be defined.
Ah, the creationists method of defining words to mean what it favorable to their argument.
A kind is the original prototype of any ancestral line; that is to say if God created two lions, and two cheetahs, these are distinct kinds. In this scenario, these two cats do not share a common ancestor, as they were created separately, and therefore are not the same kind despite similar appearance and design. If this is the case, evolution theory is guilty of using homogeneous structures as evidence of common ancestry, and then using homogeneous structures to prove common ancestry; this is circular reasoning!
That's not circular reasoning. That's your lack of understanding of science. If two species have Homologous structures (not homogeneous structures), then they are more likely to have a common ancestor. But that is not the only tool that scientists use. Genetics can also shows the relationship between lions and cheetahs are related and any common ancestors.
However, since lions and cheetahs are both clearly of the same family or design, and can potentially interbreed, we must be careful not to overlook the possibility of a very recent common ancestor.
If you mean scientific classification family (below order and above genus), then you're wrong. Lions belong to family Felidae and cheetahs belong to Felinae. As such their common ancestor would be about 11M years ago according to this abstract. Also lions and cheetahs are not known to interbreed.
It is therefore necessary to build an ancestral history based on verifiable evidence (not homogeneous structures in the fossil record) that can clearly demonstrate where exactly the cheetah and the lion had a common ancestor. If no such common ancestor can be found and confirmed without bias, and this test is performed between two or more of any plant or animal life without ever finding anything to the contrary, we can confirm with certainty evolution did not happen, and that kinds do exist.
Again, homologous structures do not absolutely prove that two species are related only that the likely they are related increases. Poor understanding of science. Second, genetics do exactly what you describe. Please read the abstract above. 11M years is the estimate. Thirdly, the lack of evidence is not proof of a negative. There are many families whose histories and heritages have been lost due to war, poor record keeping, etc. That does not mean that they didn't come from a certain place; it just means they can't prove their heritage.
The idea of kinds is in direct contrast to evolution theory which says all cats share a common ancestor, which the creation model does not hold to be true. If evolution theory is true, the word kind is a superficial label that does not exist, because beyond our classifications, there would be no clear identifiable division among animals or plants, since all plants and animals would therefore share a common ancestor. The word kind can only be applied in the context of the creation model, but can not be dismissed as impossible due to the evolutionary bias, simply because evolution has not been properly validated nor can it be held to be true until it can correctly be shown to be impossible to falsify.
Again lack of scientific understanding. Common ancestry does not mean there is only one common ancestor for all time. There are multiple common ancestors based which two species that are being compared. For example dogs are descended from wolves which is a direct lineage from about 100K. Common ancestor with a fox however goes back at least 7M and as high as 22M.
Evolution states by addition of new traits (new organs, new anatomy) that the first lifeforms increased in complexity and size by introduction of new traits, slowly increasing step by step to more complex life forms. Notice that the addition of such traits can not be attributed to the alteration of old ones, for obvious reasons, since detrimental or beneficial mutations are only alterations of already existing traits, and can not account for an increase in the number of traits any given life form possesses.
It's interesting to see how creationists blinding ignore the parts of science that refute their claims. While mutations is one means of evolution, the addition of new genes is possible and has been observed. One of the looming world health crises is the spread of antibiotic resistant superbugs which is due in part to bacterium gathering new genes like ndm 1.
If evolution theory be true, we would expect that at least one animal or plant would contain a new trait or be in the process of growing such a triat over its known common ancestors (that is not simply a multiplication or alteration of a trait it already had).
Again lack of understanding of evolution and how traits are added. Please read above.
At this point, the fossil record can not be used as evidence to prove that evolution can produce new traits due to the fact that two animals that appear to be of the same family (T-rex and Brontosaurus, dinosaurs), while they do indeed exhibit distinct trait differences, may not have a common ancestor,
No it doesn't. Your lack of understanding does prove your point.
In conclusion, should any two animals or plants within a family (a palm tree and a coconut tree) be proven to not share a common ancestor, or if no provable increase of traits can be demonstrated to be in its beginnings or actively present in the animals and plants living today over their provable ancestry, then The Bible is correct when it says God created all the animals and plants as distinct kinds with their traits to begin with. This is the only way to falsify evolution, and it is amazing (and convenient) that Darwin never encouraged people to attempt to falsify his theory in this manner.
So by your own points: we cannot prove evolution because there is no evidence of it (even though there is). The evidence cannot be trusted (because you misunderstood and misrepresented it). But we should trust only your word with no proof presented by you that God is the only true answer. That's what we call a contrived dualism.
