The word "falsifiable" does not mean the thing that you are using it for. It sounds like you are using it to mean "it was proven wrong." When talking about theories, a theory that is not falsifiable is one that could not be ever proven wrong.
The best theories are falsifiable, but have a lot of evidence pointing for the theory, and little or no against it.
They didn't say "falsifiable", they said "falsified" -- their word usage was correct: something the is Xifiable can be Xified. "falsified" does indeed mean "proven wrong" -- check your dictionary. (However, they are not correct that the theory of common descent has been falsified. And I have no idea what "Jesus is King" even means, nor is it relevant.)
The idea that there is a tree of sexual reproduction that can attribute for the current variation in genetic material has been disproven. That's where "horizontal gene transfer" theories come in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer
If something has been falsified, then it is clearly not unfalsifiable. If something is false, it's a much stronger claim than that it is simply falsifiable. That is the case here. What's your point?
I follow Jesus, that's what it means to be a Christian. He never said we have to take all of the Old Testament at face value (even though I never claimed I didn't). In fact His earthly mission was to inform us that it was out of date and He had the new Gospel, and many of his recorded words were dedicated to deriding those who followed the Old Testament legalistically.
Edit: if you actually would like a literalists interpretation of the flood, you could do worse than call up The Narrow Path radio show I linked above from 2-3 PM Pacific time and ask. The host is a full literalist and would be happy to talk.
He's saying that His coming has fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah, and that the other prophecies of the Old Testament are still in effect.
Please read a list of translations of that verse here, along with the original Greek https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-18.htm and come to your own conclusion of whether it has anything at all to do with a literal interpretation.
Wrong again. In fact, I was born and raised atheist/agnostic, and I even studied biology at a top university. I only converted when I saw how incomplete that narrative was (and, following that, how much better the Abrahamic narrative fit my personal experience and observation).
Do you have an evolutionary explanation for the butterfly?
So you stopped believing things that science has proven right, and switched to believing things science has proven wrong.
Simply changing your beliefs isn't enough, you have to change them from worse to better, not from an incomplete but self improving modern scientific narrative to an incoherent and false stagnating bronze aged mythological narrative (which is so ridiculous on its face that children can easily through see it, like your Noah's Ark story that you choose to ignore, or the fact your "good book" that's supposed to give moral guidance doesn't prohibit slavery, but does treat women as property), but here you are proudly bragging that you went the opposite direction.
Just as I predicted, you just dig deeper in when proven wrong.
So what is it about the Abrahamic narrative that appeals to you so much that you reject the very science that makes it possible for us to communicate, and to live long healthy lives?
The pro-slavery, anti-women stuff? To me, that's a strong reason to reject your bible as a source of moral or scientific guidance. But you be you, if you desperately need justification for your bigotry and hatred and subjugation of women and slaves.
>In 1 Peter 2:18-20, slaves are ordered to "in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."
>1 Corinthians 14:34–35:
These verses read in the Authorized Version "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."
Don't even bother trying to defend and rationalize the Bible's support of slavery and subjugation of women, or your belief in it. You're not going to convince me or anyone else to support slavery or abuse women. Evangelize your bigoted bronze age religion to somebody else, or simply give up and stop spreading your bigotry and hatred and anti-science propoganda.
Again, can you explain the butterfly? If not, find Axioms that can, or live in darkness, rejecting all understanding of universal truth. Those are the options.
Your mortal misgivings about a divine message are irrelevant. Consider: If, somehow, you knew for an absolute fact that the creator of the universe, the one who engineered everything about you, the world, the cosmos, "science", ethics, morals, and all else besides, said "women shouldn't speak in churches instead they should ask their husbands back home", would you tell them you know more about right and wrong than them? Or would you consider that there might be nuance to the topic and try to learn more about what they mean and why they say it? There's a ton of context to Corinthians you've left out. I'm sure you know that and are just being pretend-dumb so I won't go into it. And the world as we know it wouldn't exist without slaves, and the rejection of slavery as we know it wouldn't exist without Christians. So I'll call that a wash. If anything, the introduction of Christ led to the abolition of slavery, so that'd be a +1. All your "science" did was come up with bogus justifications for it based on skull measurements. Can you think of any of your "science" today that is focused on taking irrelevant measurements and then going to the public with creative spins on them to justify horrific practices? I can!
But I haven't rejected any science that allows us to communicate. In fact, I haven't rejected any science at all. What I've rejected is the pseudo-"science" that has become increasingly popular whereby an explanation is proposed, no relevant tests are (or can be) done, no relevant observations are (or can be) made, tons of aspects of the question are left unanswered and unanswerable, and yet people still decide it is the answer. Always by assuming that no divine intervention has happened.
Indeed the entire "historical-scientific" belief structure must be predicated on faith in lack of divine intervention to make any sense at all. It would be far better referred to as the faith-based religion of "Scientology", if that wasn't already taken.
But since your so persistent, what is it about the story of the Ark that you believe the all powerful creator of the universe would be unable to actualize?
The best theories are falsifiable, but have a lot of evidence pointing for the theory, and little or no against it.