Claiming the extinction of anything requires absolute omniscient knowledge over the whole earth and every living thing at the same moment in time ...
No --- to claim to have absolute omniscient knowledge that something is extinct requires absolute omniscient knowledge.
Otherwise, such a claim is just on the same footing as any other general statement such as "pigs don't have wings" or "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction": a summary of our present knowledge, potentially subject to falsification by the observation of a counterexample.
And what did the evolutionists say? "Wow, it must have survive for 325 million years!" It's an unfalsifiable theory, which means it's not science.
It took me a few minutes to figure out what you were trying to be wrong about.
The theory of evolution is plenty falsifiable, but not by propositions which have no possible bearing on it. The proposition that the coelacanth was extinct was not a prediction of the theory of evolution any more than the proposition that the dodo is extinct. They are based simply on the observations that no-one could find a coelacanth and that no-one can find any dodos, respectively.
Creationists think that dodos are extinct
*. If they are wrong, would this falsify creationism? If not, does that mean that creationism is unfalsifiable?
* At least, I presume that they do, since they have no particular motivation to be wrong about this subject.
™ Version 4.2
