All Claims By Christian Apologists Have Been Falsified Or Are Unfalsifiable

Falsified: found not true or correct (link).

Unfalsifiable: not able to be proven false, but not necessarily true (link). Unable to be studied by scientific methods, thus, "We don't know" is the appropriate response.

• "We can consider the existence of god to be a scientific hypothesis and look for the empirical evidence that would follow. Many of the attributes associated with the Judaic-Christian-Islamic God have specific consequences that can be tested empirically. Such a God is supposed to play a central role in the operation of the universe and the lives of humans. As a result, evidence for him should be readily detectable by scientific means." ~ Victor Stenger (The God Hypothesis)

Below are examples of claims by Christian apologists that have not been accepted by science, the best method to understand objective reality (link):

• Science shows that there was no "Original Sin" (link),
• Science shows that the mind is very probably only a function of the brain and that there probably is no independent "soul."  It has been falsified several times by several branches of science.  The mind emerged from the brain, a common occurrence in nature (i.e. water from hydrogen and oxygen, an ant colony from individual ants, etc.). 
• Science shows that the common, layperson concept of "free will" is probably an illusion (link, link, link).
• No studies have supported the existence of miracles. Mark 16:18 has been falsified. One prominent apologist offered one source as the "Best" support for miracles but clearly, it is debunked.
• There is no evidence that prayer has any effect on natural occurrences. (link)
• There is no evidence of life after death. 
• There is compelling evidence that sex/gender are not binary (link) (link) (link) (link) and that same-sex parenting is not a negative factor on children (link). Also, homosexuality is common in the animal kingdom (link). Oh, by the way, pornography is not harmful, and "shacking up" before marriage does not seem to be related to marital stability. 
• Science (especially neuroscience and psychology) has studied religious experiences and can explain them through natural mechanisms. And, no, they are not signs of a need requiring satisfaction by something real (link). Oh, and a study of the history of religion points to Christianity's fallacy of special pleading (link)(link). 
• The New Testament lacks primary sources and is untrustworthy as a historical document (link)(link).
• All logical syllogisms offered in support of Christianity have at least one premise for which there is no evidence. (link).