What is science?

I think he may have offered one. Part of which is that the nature of earth's geology is the result of a total, recent, huge, flood of the earth.This is falsifiable as it makes predictions about what the geology of the earth would be like, the distribution of living things would be like, the distribution of extinct life would be like and some other things.Of course, such predictions have been shown to be false.

You misunderstand completely what is mean by falsifiable. First get that into your head. You don't get it yet. At all!Something isn't necessarily wrong if it is falsifiable. It is simply something that allows you to check it.If my kid says "I didn't get up in the night.". That statement may not be falsifiable. That is, I have no way to check it. He may have and not done anything to leave a trace. He may not have gotten up at all. I can't tell the difference. The statment may be true or not but it is not falsifiable.If my kid says "I cleaned up my room." Then I can make a prediction from that. If it is true then the room will be a bit less messy than usual. If false everything, and more, will be where I saw it an hour or so ago. Now I can test the statement. I go and make an observation. How does the room look? The statement was falsifiable. It may still be true but it could have been shown to be false if it was.The creation account of a flood can be used to make predictions about how fossilized life would be left behind. If this is done the account becomes "testable" (maybe that is a better word than falsifiable).Likewise, the evolutionary model makes predictions about what the fossil record should look like. If the record doesn't look that way the the evolutionary model is falsified (tested and found to be in error).Unfortunately, creationists don't seem to want to supply those predictions from their "model". However, if the proponents of the model won't make those predictions then they are not producing a falsifiable suggestion.When the flood model is described there are some pretty obvious predictions that can be derived from it. This has been done here by non-creationists. Those predictions show that the creation flood model is simply wrong.The idea of a god creating the whole universe at the moment of the big bang is, for the moment, not testable. We can't say if it is right or wrong. It is not "falsifiable" that is, not testable. For the time being you may adopt this as your idea of the start of the universe if you like.However, science won't do that because most peoples description of god doesn't allow for any testing at all. If you can't do any testing you can't learn anything further. If we'd adopted that approach with demon caused disease we'd still be dying of infectious diseases.

Punctuated equlibrium would make a good topic. If you want to learn something about it you may propose one.However, the issue was how different "models" (hypothoses, theories, whatever) are distinguished. When there are multiple suggestions the capability of falsification is used to help discard some or even all of them. If any survive that test then more tests are thought up and tried.At this point the creationist ideas have been falsified for about two centuries so even if evolutionary theory were proven wrong in some way they won't come back.Punctuated equilibrium isn't an idea that is going to help you all that much by the way. It fits nicely within the basic theory and there is fossil evidence both for gradual morphological change and for rapid change with stasis. PE just shows that change isn't always gradual and slow. Darwin was wrong on that part.

Good! Please tell us how this would be done. Thanks.