I have not read all the 11 pages of words so far written, and so I may be repeating some things said earlier, and if so just ignore them. I will only address the first challenge here, and this is my response.
1.) Provide a testable hypothesis that calls into question descent with modification from common ancestors. (The theory of evolution)
Firstly, the onus of falsibility lies on those who made the hypothesis in the first place. That you do not have a testable way of falsifying your own hypothesis is sufficient grounds to consider it, at best, a weak hypothesis and certainly not a fact and even less a truth.
Secondly, I am unaware of any evidence that have demonstrated that natural selection is anything than just a convenient and acceptable explanation. To explain how antelopes become giraffes does not mean that such a thing in fact happened.
To make a analogy in geometry, if I know a point A somewhere in space and another point B also somewhere in space, but perhaps close to A, even very close, there is no reason nor justification to say or believe that there exists a line from A to B, just solely in the fact that A and B exists as such. To "predict" that there lie C in between a straight line between A and B, again does not in itself proves the straight line. But in paleontology, things are hardly as pinpoint precise as geometric singletons A, B and C, and you can almost make anything fit anything, and you only need to believe, eg the Piltsdown Man.
And thirdly I do not know - and I stand to be informed otherwise here - of any experiment that demonstrate how one species, say of some fruit fly, become another species, through several generations, with each modification in each successive generation identified and traced. For has anyone know of an artificial, or natural, species of anything created in the lab - or in the real world - through deliberate, or natural, mutation of every successive generation, and with each change or modification observed, and successful modification predicted, and the whole thing repeated, in laboratories anywhere? If not how is it a science at all?
And fourthly even if I accept - by faith as I cannot see nor measure - that natural selection do indeed occur over million and million of years, and species do indeed evolve into another - something I cannot see, but only bones that people say this and that about - that faith in itself however does not go on to compel you to believe that everything descended from just one root.
Natural selection per se do not say anything about the root or roots of species. Amphibians dont have to evolve from fishes, and fishes dont have to evolve from amoeba. So what is the evidence for even suggesting that all living things evolve from a single thing? There just can be some proto-amphibian, proto-reptile, etc, in the "beginning", from which, via natural selection, we see everything today.
And so even if evolutionists do not have a falsibility test, there is sufficient evidence, or more exactly a lack thereof, to dismiss the theory of evolution as science. It can remain a hypothesis, a weak one, albeit, but to put it forth as science is very damaging for development of true science and intellectual thoughts, as it stifles the foment and creation of alternative and perhaps truer knowledge of things, even as the obsolete notion of phlogiston crippled the advance of chemistry for a long long time.
And to add, even Alfred Russel Wallace, the co founder of natural selection with Darwin, have had reservations that evolution explains everything.
There are indeed some scientific facts - in the sense of observability, measureability, repeatibility, predictibility - here and there, arising from experimentations or observation, as motivated by notions of natural selection, of life, from the microscopic to the aggregates like society, but these facts are just that. They do not proof anything, even as all induction can never be proven. In other words the notion of natural selection has some value, but it is certainly not the explanation for everything. The theory of everything probably has a better shot at that than evolution.
And as an aside, fame, personal glory, rewards, public preeminence, career advancement, etc ought never to be the motivation for anyone seeking the truth, for if so, one immediately makes oneself corruptible and beholden to something other than the Truth itself.
And finally a word on science and religion, or more precisely science and the Christian God. Man can only observe things from his perspective, his small view of the small earth in the immense universe in the stars and in the sub atomic levels:the instances of things that be, here and there; but he has a mind that somehow compels him to see patterns and the need to put in order all these things he sees, and thus he makes induction. He can make further abduction, and that gives him some assurance that his big picture he induces has some validity, but he can never really be sure.
Knowledge however is not the sole monopoly of science and logic. God reveals truth too. And thus scientific truths, when they are true, can never be in conflict with revealed truths.
When there is a conflict, such as in the times of Galileo, and now with evolution, then one or the other or both is somehow not quiet true yet. And we know that God didnt make the Big Bang happened, if indeed this was the case, and just left "nature" to run its course. "Nature" is not so simply that. That is something science have yet to reckon.
