...is because the post he's misrepresenting is not exactly challenging in terms of comprehensibility. It's brief (for me...lol), avoids unnecessary jargon, and addresses the point directly and unequivocally. Here is the complete text:

---------------------------
If a possible scenario exists that would invalidate a theory, then that theory is falsifiable, regardless of whether that scenario has occurred or not. This is Philosophy of Science 101 stuff.

The finding of anomalous fossils is a possible occurrence. Therefore, evolution is falsifiable. The lack of such fossils to this point means it's unfalsified...not unfalsifiable.
--------------------------

I don't think anyone possessing basic adult-level literacy in English (which this poster has previously evidenced) could possibly construe the above to have the precise opposite meaning that it actually conveys. Particularly after being corrected more than once...

The only other likely explanation is him being deliberately obtuse and disingenuous, effectively trolling this forum. I have no use for that sort of infantile nonsense or anyone who indulges in it, and won't bother engaging. Obviously my position in any future discussion of his welcome here will reflect that. This forum is in a poor state right now (with all the nasty politics); it doesn't need disingenuous trolls piled onto that, even if they do post more-or-less on topic.