Thoughts on Deistic Evolution

[Paraleptopecten (Timothy Campbell)]

@Burrawang

How in the world do you think you know the Ark wouldn’t work and would fall apart?

An ark shaped like the one in the picture wouldn’t work and would fall apart. Genesis mentions nothing about having a keel or the exact outline.

@Burrawang

by things we have never observed that are supposedly 96% of the universe is if you ask me, more than just a tad unhinged.

That has already been pointed out to be both a lie and a slander against cosmologists.

@Paraleptopecten

They are observed by their effects. Dark matter is "there is extra mass causing directly measured effects on gravity, but we can’t tell what the mass is. Dark energy is “whatever is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate”. To claim that direct measurements are “fudge factors” is a lie.

@Burrawang

the fact that it is unfalsifiable

HOW? Given that multiple examples of ways that it could be falsified have been pointed out already, this is an untruth.

@T_aquaticus

@Burrawang

then how about you explain some of those, “many, many examples” as to how the theory of evolution can be falsified.

1. Obvious and numerous violations of a nested hierarchy in complex eukaryotes.
2. A lack of correlation between phylogenies based on morphology and genetic sequences.
3. Obvious and numerous examples of orthologous ERV’s that do not map to canonical phylogenies.
4. Out of order fossils, such as rabbits in Cambrian strata.

These are just a few of many.

@T_aquaticus

The link I gave you lists 29 such potential falsifications. Here is an example:

Potential Falsification:

When it became possible to sequence biological molecules, the realization of a markedly different tree based on the independent molecular evidence would have been a fatal blow to the theory of evolution, even though that is by far the most likely result. More precisely, the common descent hypothesis would have been falsified if the universal phylogenetic trees determined from the independent molecular and morphological evidence did not match with statistical significance. Furthermore, we are now in a position to begin construction of phylogenetic trees based on other independent lines of data, such as chromosomal organization. In a very general sense, chromosome number and length and the chromosomal position of genes are all causally independent of both morphology and of sequence identity. Phylogenies constructed from these data should recapitulate the standard phylogenetic tree as well (Hillis et al. 1996; Li 1997).
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

@Burrawang

the Flood destroyed all the Earth under Heaven and extinguished all life on Earth in whose nostrils was the breath of life, thus the Flood covered the whole Earth.

All of the flat disk Earth under the Firmament. Given that the same word is used of “all the earth” going to Egypt during the famine with Joseph, and for “the land of Egypt”, it does not correspond to “the globe”.

@Burrawang

Do you believe any of Genesis is history?

No. Solely because “history” as a genre that any modern Westerner would describe it did not exist until at least c. 750 BC. “Is it trustworthy?” is a completely different question from “Is it history?”