You can say any theory isn't science using this logic.
No. You should learn what falsifiable means. That is the root of all your confusion.
Science is a collection of falsifiable models that predict nature. Darwin's Evolutions is not falsifiable and does not predict nature.
You could say the Big Bang theory isn't science.
The Big Bang theory is not science. It is speculation about the past. It is not a falsifiable model. It does not predict nature.
You could say it's not science to assume that gravity was around before humans were alive.
Correct. Science does not speculate about the past. Humans speculate about the past. Science does not.
The reason evolution, or any theory, is considered a fact
It's only considered a "fact" when all parties agree to it. If you and I were discussing Darwin's theory then yes, between us, it's a fact-Jack. The moment you let someone else into the conversation who does not accept Darwin's speculation then it ceases to be a fact and becomes an argument. I'm happy to make that argument all day, all week, but at that point it is an argument, not a fact.
... is because there is enough evidence and repeatable experiments to prove that evolution is most likely true.
There is no such thing as a "sufficient quantity" of evidence that requires people to believe a theory. There have been no experiments on Darwin's speculation about the past because we don't have time machines. There have been plenty of observations and tests on genetics and that is science.
As for it being falsifiable, in what context?
You really need to learn what that word means. There is no "context." It's what makes science totally objective and removes it from the subjective world of opinion. Falsifiability is why no one owns science. No one's permission or approval is required to create science. Falsifiability is an
absolute requirement for science. No unfalsifiable model can even enter the scientific method.
Don't worry, I won't leave you hanging.
Falsifiability is the inherent quality of a model to specify what will show the model to be false if it is, in fact, false. For example, E = m*c^2 is falsifiable. All anyone has to do to show it to be false is to find just one example in nature whereby that relationship does not hold. It's not a matter of anyone's opinion. If someone were to find such a falsifying example then the model is false. Period. No one gets to say "Awww, you're just cherry-picking" or "That doesn't prove anything."
Nobody gets a say. The model itself must be falsifiable.
Is it possible to prove 100% that evolution didn't happen?
Nope. That's the nature of unfalsifiable theories. They can't be shown to be true and they cannot be shown to be false.
... but the same can be said for any theory.
Nope. Science is that set of falsifiable models that no one has been able to show are false.
My favorite example is the Stefan-Boltzmann law (bear with me):
Radiance = Temperature^4 * SB_Constant * Emissivity
It blows
Greenhouse Effect out of the water and turns warmizombies into science deniers as they argue in desperation that this particular law doesn't apply to earth. Their problem is that is a falsifiable model that they cannot prove false ... to their chagrin.
