I think the context of the other conversation was something about the existence of god or the validity of the Bible. Can't remember exactly, but this is about the misrepresentation of science. So I will engage for a little bit.<quoted text>
In the last 60 years or so,Science has made 2 important" discoveries"
The Universe had a beginning and that the minerals contained in dirt are also found in the human Body.
Genesis begins with" In the begining,God created the Heavens and the Earth, and continues
And God made man,out of the dust of the ground.
What Science is not able to explain is the process that made us into living intelligent beings,created out of unintelligent unliving matter.
It is from that foundation,on tot knowing,that they proceed to explain to us ,how this process might have taken place.
You've got a lot of problems going on with your logic. I'll address a few of them that are contained in this part of your post.
First, why did you only list two important discoveries of science? Also, one of them makes no sense. I don't remember science figuring out that the human body came from dirt in the last 60 years. Mainly because it is a nonsense idea. I mean sure, we ALL come from stardust if you wanna get really cosmic about it. But my body and your body certainly do not come from dust, dirt, or mud.
Then trying to link it to Genesis...really? Because that book mentions a beginning you assume it knew about the Big Bang? It's ludicrous. LOTS of ancient creation myths talk about how the world came into being. Sometimes by fire, sometimes by sex, sometimes by murder or even vomit. And the idea of a human coming from dirt is not unique to the Bible either. Primitive people saw maggots form as if by magic, seemingly right out of the earth itself. They watched plants grow out of the dirt. It's not a leap to hypothesize that humans came out of the dirt.
And it certainly is not some kind of early knowledge of science. The Bible doesn't even know about germs. It doesn't know about dinosaurs (spare the Behemoth claptrap). It doesn't tell us to wash our hands. It makes no mention of evolution.
In fact, the only thing it seems to know about are the very things that sheep herders who lived 3000-4000 years ago would have known about. How convenient.
Now, regarding science. It works by process. It looks at evidence, suggests explanations, tests them. The good ones stand, the bad ones fall.
If science hasn't given us a good answer about the start of life yet that does not mean it can't. There is simply no reason at all to assume that we can't figure that mystery out. It took a very long time to figure out evolution, germ theory, relativity, plate tectonics, and how to make vaccines to save millions. These ideas about origins are hard nuts to crack. It's gonna take a lot of time to do it.
The fact that you take this as some kind of admission of falsehood or deception shows me that you do not know anything about science. At all.
Also, I never said I could interpret scripture. I said I enjoy reading about it and I understand the way the ancient interpreters worked. Stop changing my words to suit what you would like me to say.