Weather during the Global Flood

[Critias]

Actually, very few mutations are harmful. By far the most, (over 95%) are neither harmful nor beneficial---just different.

Not just different, useless and treated as garbage. And then you have about 2-3% that are harmful. Then you have 2-3% that could be considered beneficial, depending on environment in which the 'creature' is in. This 2-3% is speculative considering that environment plays a large role in a possible benefit in mutation.

So, we have about 97-98% of mutations not doing anything to help in any way for evolution. And then we have about 2-3% that may or may not help a creature with survival. These mutations are also not something that changes the specie from one type to a completely different type. Also, these mutations are not always genetically transfered to offspring. They can remain dorment for either by one set of offspring or never turn up again.

We see this within the human species with birth defects that show up and are never seen again within that same bloodline. These birth defects are mutations that do not give any benefit whatsoever in the current environment. We have yet to see any mutation within the human or ape ancestry that does have a beneficial affect that cause such a jump in speciation as evolution so postulates.

So, your 2-3% of beneficial mutation is very much speculative and dependent on other outside factors to determine if it is passed on or even largely beneficial. Not even considering predation of species that are trying to adapt to a new environment in which they are prematurely entering because of their genetic abnormalities. Survival of the fittest comes to mind at this point.

 

[Critias]

I think God values faith and reason above unbelief and irrationality. I do not believe God means for faith and reason to be opposed to each other, but to work together.

There is an old story about a Sunday school student who, when asked to define faith, said "Faith means believing what you know ain't so."

That is supposed to be a joke.

But all too often here, I see creationists demanding exactly this kind of "faith".

I don't agree with that definition of faith. If I know something ain't so, then God also knows it ain't do, and God does not expect me, or even desire me, to believe it, because to believe what ain't so would be to believe a lie.

Faith is more essential than reason. Reason alone will never lead one to God. Reason alone will never bring one to salvation. So between them faith takes pre-eminence. But faith has no need to deny reason.

I would assume if Job were alive today, you would be telling him this as well. Since, he claimed he didn't need to know but rather would just believe.

 

[gluadys]

Not just different, useless and treated as garbage.

Some, yes. But not all. Blue eyes and brown eyes are different, but don't make any apparent difference to fitness. But are they useless garbage?

And then you have about 2-3% that are harmful. Then you have 2-3% that could be considered beneficial, depending on environment in which the 'creature' is in. This 2-3% is speculative considering that environment plays a large role in a possible benefit in mutation.

Interesting that you acknowledge the role of the environment when it comes to beneficial mutations, but forgot to include that factor when referring to harmful mutations. "harmful" and "beneficial" are not terms that one can apply directly to a mutations, but only with the addition "in this environment".

As we know from the famous peppered moth case, what is harmful in one environment can be beneficial in another. So the environment is always a factor.

btw, this can apply to neutral mutations as well. Changes in the environment may render a hitherto neutral mutation harmful or beneficial. Or vice versa. Remove insecticide from the environment and the mutations that built up resistance in the insect are no longer beneficial, but neutral, at best.

These mutations are also not something that changes the specie from one type to a completely different type.

The theory of evolution does not envision any type of life becoming a completely different type. All new species are modifications of their ancestral species. That is why the classification of living things results in a nested hierarchy.

Also, these mutations are not always genetically transfered to offspring. They can remain dorment for either by one set of offspring or never turn up again.

You are conflating two different ideas here.

1. Not all mutations are transmitted to offspring. True. Mutations occur in every one of the trillions of cells in your body. But only those which occur in germ cells have the potential to be transmitted to your children. And even then, it has to occur in the lucky one-out-of-a-trillion sperm cells that fertilizes an egg and matures into a child and then a reproducing adult.

2. By "dormant" you may be referring to the Mendelian concept of a recessive trait. Many mutations are recessive in respect of the normal trait. So when such a mutation is inherited, it will not immediately show up in the phenotype. It can, however, still be passed on to one's children and will normally have a 50% chance of being bequeathed to each child.

It may take several generations until the mutation exists in enough individuals that two of them mate, and both can pass the recessive gene to their child, who will then display the new trait.

Not until then will natural selection be able to act on the new trait.

We have yet to see any mutation within the human or ape ancestry that does have a beneficial affect that cause such a jump in speciation as evolution so postulates.

What a strange idea of speciation you must have to think it can occur as the result of a single mutation. It is not completely impossible to have such an instantaneous new species, but speciation is normally a gradual process that involves many, many mutations over many, many generations, and isolating mechanisms as well.

 

[gluadys]

I would assume if Job were alive today, you would be telling him this as well. Since, he claimed he didn't need to know but rather would just believe.
[/size][/color][/font]

The problem of innocent suffering is a far different matter than determining the age of the earth. It only arises if one presupposes a God who is both powerful and good. And in the end, we can only come to where Job came and either trust in the goodness of God or reject God altogether.

Too often we forget that faith is not a question of intellect, but a question of trust. Trust, primarily, in the character of God. Belief, in Christian terms, is 99% believing that God loves you. The rest is commentary.

That is not a scientific matter. Nor does it require disputing the findings of science.

 

[night2day]

gluadys:
There is an old story about a Sunday school student who, when asked to define faith, said "Faith means believing what you know ain't so."

That is supposed to be a joke.

But all too often here, I see creationists demanding exactly this kind of "faith". ...I don't agree with that definition of faith. If I know something ain't so, then God also knows it ain't do, and God does not expect me, or even desire me, to believe it, because to believe what ain't so would be to believe a lie....Faith is more essential than reason. Reason alone will never lead one to God. Reason alone will never bring one to salvation. So between them faith takes pre-eminence. But faith has no need to deny reason.

I would assume if Job were alive today, you would be telling him this as well. Since, he claimed he didn't need to know but rather would just believe.

I'm reminded of Thomas for some reason when it comes to matters of belief and unbelief.

Poor Thomas. He's often cast in a bad light. Even though many, if not all, the remaining disiples disbelieved the Marys when they were told of Jesus' resurrection. At any rate, Jesus' response when he showed Himself to Thomas: "...because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." (ref John 20:24-29)

And, of course, that would include Job. The same one who stated in faith: "For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God..." (ref Job 19:25-26)

Biblical definition of faith as well as numerous examples are found within Hebrews 11-12: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." After listing 30 verses of believers cited from the Old Testament, including Noah as well as Job btw, within the 11th chapter, it adds

"And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets: Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection: And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; (Of whom the world was not worthy they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth."

The next chapter:

"Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God."

By the way, reason actually doesn't have any hand in how one is led to salvation by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ alone.. It's the Holy Spirit working through the Gospel. It is by God's doing, not any of ours.

A person is certainly able to reject saving faith. But not recieve or reason saving faith. God's grace is yet another Biblical mystery and one He has chosen to remain silent on.

 

[Critias]

Aye, and Jesus said, 'This is why I have told you that no one can come to Me unless the Father has enabled him.' (John6:65)

But, so often Christians say it was their choice, by their faith, when faith is a gift from God that can only be obtained because the Father has enabled them to be able to come to Jesus.

 

[night2day]

That is because other factors may also have contributed to the demise of the dinosaurs, but other factors did not contribute to the addition of iridium.

The matter you do not know but can merely guess shows it's not based on fact...but on belief.

Not by faith. It was measured. Before and after a certain point, only the normal rare incidence of iridium. At a certain point, coinciding with the meter impact, an unusually high incidence of iridium ranging from 30 to 200 times the normal amount.

Science is studying using the method of observation. There was no observation you cited before impact. No time given when theactual measurements were made. Or by who. Only measurements stated from no certain source. In other words, another theory of what possibly occured. But nothing definate. As well as a statement how this may have affected the dinosaurs. Which adds another theory.

And you are right to say "believe", for you believe this on faith.

Indeed. I freely admit it and have.

You cannot produce any such evidence because it does not exist.

I cannot produce any evidence not because it doesn't exist, but:

1.) One person cannot change another's mind or belief.
2.) You have already demonstrated you will not accept any interpretation of evidence unless it coincides and supports with your own worldviews. Any others; you claim they are not in existance.
3.) Tangible evidence doesn't automatically mean faith. The Hebrews who worshipped the Golden Calf in Exodus had all the proof they needed of God's power, might, and special concern for them. Yet, they collectively turned their backs on Him and worshipped a cow at the foot of the very mountain were Moses was.

No amount of tangible evidence means didly squat if one only wishes to reject it.

...having calculated that creation took place in 4004 BCE, he would teach that the world today is 6008 years old. And that the flood occurred in 2347 BCE. Ussher did his calculations in the 17th century. They were considered so accurate that for more than a century bibles were printed with his dates in them. Do you know of any reason to add another 4000 years to his dates?

And he used the ages of those listed within the geneologies to do so. However, many of those ages not only overlapped, they also stated how long a person lived...not Born: (name year); Died: (name year). There were also other events covered were the length of time is given regarding how long the event is. But not how many years transpire between certain events.

An example would be, God created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th. However, it does not state Adam and Eve immediately sinned and rebelled against God after creation. It does indicate they took walks with God within the Garden, and after they disobeyed God immediately points out distinct changes in their behavior. Some detail is given, some is left out. The truth is, the Bible just doesn't give that bit of information. The only reason some may glean it as happening immediately after...the Fall into Sin occurs in the next chapter.

Ussher's calculations were based on the Genesis genealogies, and, as noted, work out to 1657 years. Note too that in Genesis 4 there is reference to the building of a city, and in Genesis 6 to the development of the domestication of animals, the invention of musical instruments and work in both bronze and iron. Those are earmarks of civilization. And all this occurs pre-flood.

Point being? Since I already addressed the one issue, I'll note another. I never said there wasn't a pre-flood civilization. God instituted the family unit to be the bare basics of any foundation, thus, any civilizations have their foundation there. I simply stated the major civilizations you were pointing out, such as the Egyptions as you mentioned, more than likely were not in existance yet. That doesn't mean others were not. Only that the Bible speaks of God seeing Mankind's stench of sin, destroys everything by flood yet preserves Noah, His family, and those on the ark.

In a big way, it's alot like the cross of calvary. God showed the punishment and wrath sin warrents, and His mercy and grace as Jesus chose to take that punishment on Himself so we would never have to. And that all those who believe in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior have complete forgiveness of sins and eternal life.

What is it about dead that is misunderstood? I thought I had made that clear. How did these dead people in Egypt, China, India, Peru, and other places manage to go on as usual producing food, babies, buildings, inscriptions, writings, roads, ships and all the other paraphernalia of civilization if they were all dead?

How do you know they existed at the time of the flood? You're making presumptions that even the civilizations were the same regarding this flood and the same ones God destroyed would have needed to be resurrected. But with Noah and his family being the only humans who were saved, you're implying they immediately fell into unbelief and taught their children to do the same.

However in Hebrews 11 Noah is listed among those who by grace, through faith, were among the Old Testament saints. Saints in the term that all believers in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior from sin, death, and Hell are saints. In the Old Testament it was believing in the promises God would send a Savior. In the New, these promises were all fulfilled.

"Assumptions" that you can see for yourself in many museums around the world. Pretty tangible "assumptions" if you ask me.

Yep. Especially when scientists are not able to use the one main thrust they have in their field: observation. All they have left is guesswork. And as noted within the scientific community, theories are always changing.

From link: This is the best-documented transition between vertebrate classes. So far this series is known only as a series of genera or families; the transitions from species to species are not known. But the family sequence is quite complete. Each group is clearly related to both the group that came before, and the group that came after, and yet the sequence is so long that the fossils at the end are astoundingly different from those at the beginning.

Gingerich has stated (1977) "While living mammals are well separated from other groups of animals today, the fossil record clearly shows their origin from a reptilian stock and permits one to trace the origin and radiation of mammals in considerable detail."

1.) If one does not have the pictures of the puzzle, how can it be claimed it is put al together? There have been numerous times in the past were evolutionists have sited to have found a transitional "species to species" fossil only for it to be a hoax. Does the name "Lucy" ring a bell? Originally the so-called first "missing link" was found. Then finding out a human skeleton was mixed with that of an an actual ape, as testified by scientists who did the examinations, turned out to be a rather big embarrasment.

NOTE on hearing: The eardrum had developed in the only place available for it -- the lower jaw, right near the jaw hinge, supported by a wide prong (reflected lamina) of the angular bone. These animals could now hear airborne sound, transmitted through the eardrum to two small lower jaw bones, the articular and the quadrate, which contacted the stapes in the skull, which contacted the cochlea. Rather a roundabout system and sensitive to low-frequency sound only, but better than no eardrum at all! Cynodonts developed quite loose quadrates and articulars that could vibrate freely for sound transmittal while still functioning as a jaw joint, strengthened by the mammalian jaw joint right next to it. All early mammals from the Lower Jurassic have this low-frequency ear and a double jaw joint. By the middle Jurassic, mammals lost the reptilian joint (though it still occurs briefly in embryos) and the two bones moved into the nearby middle ear, became smaller, and became much more sensitive to high-frequency sounds.

Microevolution is accepted by quite a few scientists. The change within a given species over time. However, the species remains the same species. A cat remains a cat and a dog remains a dog.

It's Macroevolution, changes of one species into another over time, that is rejected.

Thay some animals have traits and others don't is certainly no evidence of evolution. Nor is simularity found within two seperate species stating both were evolved and branched out so to speak. Further, there are many areas within animals, and humans, that were seen as "left overs" from evolution. More and more science is finding that's not the case. Tonsils and Adnoids first thought to have meaning actually help in the production of white blood cells to fight infection. The appendicx, also thought to have been a "left over" is know known to also be where white blood cells are manufactured. It's removal increases the chances of several types of cancers found in the colon and reproductive organs. Not to mention the kidneys if I remember correctly.

It means that bounds which restrained the waters of the abyss (aka deep) were broken and the waters overflowed the earth as in the days before God gathered them into seas. Now where does it say anything about earthquakes?

For one thing, if the waters had to actually break anything from coming up fron underground, what else would it be?

What possible breaking of the land masses? Where does the story of the flood make reference to any of this?

Already asked and answered.

Scripture does not even indicate that there were dramatic changes to the earth. Only to people and animals.

See previous.

This case is so confused I am not going to attempt to justify anyone's actions. Suffice it to say the article was published under questionable circumstances that, if let pass, could undermine the basis of credibility of all scientific journals.

Only shows what was being said. On the whole there's a bais and inability to allow free speech concerning ideas and theories to be stated aloud. That evolution adherants can't even allow another opinion to weigh in before trying to do away with the person who allowed it to be spoken, regadless if he/sge is agreed with it or not.

Stating it would "undermine the credability of all scientific journals" sounds more like "can't allow any opening for new ideas...even though that's what science is all about".

I notice you completely side-stepped the question of how long it would take one of Noah's descendants to get to Egypt and begin repopulating the Nile Valley.

Immaterial. If you wish to push aside Genesis 10...that's you're option. Not mine.

How do you explain the lack of a 20 year gap in Egyptian historical records after the flood? How do you explain the existence of a large enough population to build the pyramids?

Immaterial. You're assuming Egypt as an empire existed, there were pyramids, there were survivors.

I mean, when you speak of reading Genesis "as it is, the way it is written"--

Look up the word literary within the dictionary sometime...

--do you mean reading it as you do? Do you mean that anyone who does not agree with your reading of Genesis is not accepting Genesis?

...instead of becoming offended there are those of us take the Scriptures as God's innerant, infallibe word which explains itself fully, each Testament fully supporting the other, with Jesus Christ in the middle.

And to whom has he given that interpretation? To you?

Look up the phrase "Scripture interprets Scripture" sometime.

Who decreed that the scriptures are God's only communication to us?

God did -- as un-PC as that is for today's world.

Who declared that information from outside scripture cannot shed light on scripture and aid in a correct understanding of scripture?

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."
(Galations 1:8-9)
​

That's right. Valid facts and observations do not go away just because you want them to. If you have any to share, that you feel support your case, feel free to present them. I have already presented many which you have ignored.

My posts stand as my responses. If you've skipped over anything by accident or otherwise regarding what I have written...it's not my responsibility.

I think God values faith and reason above unbelief and irrationality. I do not believe God means for faith and reason to be opposed to each other, but to work together.

You forget one tiny improtant thing:

"...the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men."
​

1 Corinthians 1:25

Not to mention when Jesus said to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and your neighbor as yourself...there's little question just what was placed first. God is to be the one to direct and define the bounderies of our heart, soul, and mind. Not us. Where else does he tell us but his word? However, if one dismisses the Scriptures from being taken as they are read...in the way they were written within their orginal context, they remove themselves from the source to know how God loves us, wants us to love Him, and our neighbor.
​

Well, if you call living in denial of reality, faith....

If it's denial a of this world's reality which even it becomes engulfed and within and instead relies on God and His promises, gladly.

This world is not slated to last you realize?

 

[night2day]

Aye, and Jesus said, 'This is why I have told you that no one can come to Me unless the Father has enabled him.' (John6:65)

But, so often Christians say it was their choice, by their faith, when faith is a gift from God that can only be obtained because the Father has enabled them to be able to come to Jesus.

Which serves only to take away what is God's rightfully doing and declaring it a work of human beings.

I would think this would cause some to doubt their faith since one is resting on the assurance of one's own faith...and not the work God has done for them.

 

[gluadys]

[/color]By the way, reason actually doesn't have any hand in how one is led to salvation by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ alone.. It's the Holy Spirit working through the Gospel. It is by God's doing, not any of ours.

A person is certainly able to reject saving faith. But not recieve or reason saving faith. God's grace is yet another Biblical mystery and one He has chosen to remain silent on.

I agree with everything you have said in this post. But go through those biblical definitions of faith again. There is not one that defines faith as "believing what you know ain't so." Not one says you must deny your sensory observations or discard sound reason.

Faith is presented consistently as believing what is not seen; it is never about rejecting what is seen. Faith is beyond reason; it is never against reason.

Faith is an act of the heart; reason is an act of the head. Both have their place, but it is the heart, God's heart of love for us, and our heartfelt response of love for God, that is the essence of faith.

 

[gluadys]

The matter you do not know but can merely guess shows it's not based on fact...but on belief.

Actually, it is a question of other factors also contributing such as the massive volcanoes that were occurring in India at the time, creating the Deccan highlands. Both factors would have impacted the climate for some time.

Science is studying using the method of observation. There was no observation you cited before impact.

You are being silly. How do you study an impact crater without studying what it impacted--IOW what was there before? A crater has to be a crater in something after all. And the impact fractures have to be made in existing rock formations.

No time given when theactual measurements were made. Or by who. Only measurements stated from no certain source. In other words, another theory of what possibly occured. But nothing definate. As well as a statement how this may have affected the dinosaurs. Which adds another theory.

The information is easily found with a google on "iridium". The spike in iridium was found in 1980 by Luis and Walter Alvarez.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/do80di.html
http://www.ceemast.csupomona.edu/nova/alvarez2.html

I cannot produce any evidence not because it doesn't exist, but:

1.) One person cannot change another's mind or belief.

Producing evidence may not change a person's mind (you are evidence of that) but it can still be produced. So if it exists you can produce it. You are not responsible for the effect it has, but for producing evidence which you claim exists.

2.) You have already demonstrated you will not accept any interpretation of evidence unless it coincides and supports with your own worldviews. Any others; you claim they are not in existance.

I haven't even seen any other interpretation of the evidence I have presented. So, how can I have demonstrated I will not accept a different interpretation.

Again, what I may think of your evidence does not prevent you from producing it.

3.) Tangible evidence doesn't automatically mean faith.

Irrelevant. If the evidence exists, it can be shown.

No amount of tangible evidence means didly squat if one only wishes to reject it.

As you are demonstrating. But as you see, I can still present the evidence you choose to reject. So you have no excuse. If evidence of a global flood exists, you can produce it.

And he used the ages of those listed within the geneologies to do so. However, many of those ages not only overlapped, they also stated how long a person lived...not Born: (name year); Died: (name year). There were also other events covered were the length of time is given regarding how long the event is. But not how many years transpire between certain events.

They state the age of the person at the birth of his son and the total length of his life. Can you provide an example of an overlap?

An example would be, God created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th. However, it does not state Adam and Eve immediately sinned and rebelled against God after creation.

Irrelevant. The biblical genealogy gives the total length of Adam's life as 930 years. And that he was 130 when Seth was born, an event that had to take place 15 years after leaving Eden, at a minimum. That allows for more than a century in Eden. Though we cannot be certain it was that long.

Point being? Since I already addressed the one issue, I'll note another. I never said there wasn't a pre-flood civilization.

And civilizations leave evidence of their existence. So below the flood sediments we should find evidence of pre-flood civilizations.

I simply stated the major civilizations you were pointing out, such as the Egyptions as you mentioned, more than likely were not in existance yet.

Not according to Ussher's date. If the flood occurred, as he estimated, in 2347 BCE, the Egyptian civilization was already nearly 700 years old, and that is only counting from the beginning of the 1st dynasty of a united Egypt. There were people living in the Nile Valley long before that.

http://www.ancient-egypt.org/history/index.html

Now if you want to be very radical and suggest that Ussher was quite wrong in his dating, you might place creation and the flood somewhat earlier. But you still run into the same problem of civilizations all over the world already existing and going on about their business, with no sign of being interrupted by a flood.

For exmple: here is a description of many civilizations which existed 6,000 years ago.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=10923986#post10923986

How do you know they existed at the time of the flood?

See the links above. There is plenty of evidence they existed at the supposed time of the flood, even at one supposed time of creation.

And this is the case with other dates too. For example, the first city on the site of Jericho was built around 10,000 years ago. The city has been destroyed and rebuilt a number of times. But there is no evidence in those 10,000 years that it was ever destroyed by a flood.

By contrast, the city of Ur was destroyed at one point by a flood. Excavators had to dig through many feet of mud and silt before discovering the pre-flood city. However, this was not a global flood by a local one, not extending much past the city itself.

In short, there is no evidence that a global flood destroyed the human race at any time in recorded history, no matter how far back you go.

Even more, there is no evidence that a global flood occurred in human pre-history either, or even before humans existed. Not a single geological stratum can be identified as due to a global flood. Check out posts 26-28 "Why was the flood so dry?" on this page:
http://www.christianforums.com/t1155768-the-quiet-thread.html&page=3

Yep. Especially when scientists are not able to use the one main thrust they have in their field: observation. All they have left is guesswork. And as noted within the scientific community, theories are always changing.

How about all the observations in the links above?

There have been numerous times in the past were evolutionists have sited to have found a transitional "species to species" fossil only for it to be a hoax. Does the name "Lucy" ring a bell? Originally the so-called first "missing link" was found. Then finding out a human skeleton was mixed with that of an an actual ape, as testified by scientists who did the examinations, turned out to be a rather big embarrasment.

There is so much misinformation in this paragraph one hardly knows where to begin.

Let's start with "hoax". A hoax is not a mistake. A hoax is a deliberately planned fraud, like Piltdown man, or more recently, Archeoraptor. And like Moab man and Ica stones. One of the differences between scientists and creationists is that scientists don't keep on using proven hoaxes to support their case.

An honest mistake is not a hoax. It is a mis-identification. Nebraska man was an error not a hoax.

Lucy is neither an error nor a hoax nor an embarrassment. And her skeleton is only one of several of her species.

Lucy was not the first fossil to be identified as a "missing link". That was Java man (first named Pithecanthropus aka "ape-man"). This was a natural error since it was the first and only primitive human fossil available for study. Today, it is recognized as belonging to the species Homo erectus and much different from non-human apes.

Citation from
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#mamm

NOTE on hearing: The eardrum had developed in the only place available for it -- the lower jaw, right near the jaw hinge, supported by a wide prong (reflected lamina) of the angular bone. These animals could now hear airborne sound, transmitted through the eardrum to two small lower jaw bones, the articular and the quadrate, which contacted the stapes in the skull, which contacted the cochlea. Rather a roundabout system and sensitive to low-frequency sound only, but better than no eardrum at all! Cynodonts developed quite loose quadrates and articulars that could vibrate freely for sound transmittal while still functioning as a jaw joint, strengthened by the mammalian jaw joint right next to it. All early mammals from the Lower Jurassic have this low-frequency ear and a double jaw joint. By the middle Jurassic, mammals lost the reptilian joint (though it still occurs briefly in embryos) and the two bones moved into the nearby middle ear, became smaller, and became much more sensitive to high-frequency sounds.

Microevolution is accepted by quite a few scientists. The change within a given species over time. However, the species remains the same species. A cate remains a cat and a dog remains a dog.

You have just described the transition from reptiles to mammals as microevolution.

For one thing, if the waters had to actually break anything from coming uo fron underground, what else would it be?

Scripture doesn't say they came from underground. It refers to the "fountains of the deep" IOW the source of ocean waters.

Already asked and answered.

Not answered. Where in the flood story does the scripture speak of earthquakes or plates shifting or land masses breaking apart?

Immaterial. If you wish to push aside Genesis 10...that's you're option. Not mine.

Immaterial. You're assuming Egypt as an empire existed, there were pyramids, there were survivors.

It is not immaterial and I am not making assumptions. You have been given the evidence that there was a flourishing Egyptian nation at the usual estimated date of the flood. If it were destroyed by the flood, and if we take Genesis 10 as accurate in attributing the father of the post-flood Egypt to one of the sons of Ham, the Nile Valley must have been devoid of all human life for at least a generation and re-creating a civilization would take at least several centuries. There would have to be a significant break in Egyptian history. And there is not.

Furthermore, Egypt is only one locality which should show this break in its history. But none do.

If the flood were actually global, why is it so invisible?

Look up the word literary within the dictionary sometime...

I teach literature. I know what literary means. I know how to identify different types of literature. I know a myth when I read it, and the flood story in the bible is a myth.

Do you mean that anyone who does not agree with your reading of Genesis is not accepting Genesis?

...instead of becoming offended there are those of us take the Scriptures as God's innerant, infallibe word which explains itself fully, each Testament fully supporting the other, with Jesus Christ in the middle.

I am not offended--yet. Your statement does not answer the question as asked. It does raise another question. Are you saying that only those who do read scripture as you do take scripture to be God's inerrant, infallible word? Please stop side-stepping this issue.

Look up the phrase "Scripture interprets Scripture" sometime.

Scripture interprets nothing. Students of scripture sometimes find one part of scripture sheds light on another. But there are also very many other things which help as well. Archeology has revealed a lot about the way of life in ancient times that explain much about what is referred to in scripture. No serious student of scripture would avoid any knowledge, from any source, that elucidates the meaning of scripture.

God did -- as un-PC as that is for today's world.

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."
(Galations 1:8-9)
​

That verse contradicts your statement as it speaks of preaching the gospel, not of reading the scriptures. The writer to the Hebrews would disagree with you to, for he says that long ago, God spoke in many and various ways and has now spoken by his Son.

And Paul tells the Romans that even those who have not the law have not excuse for their sins, since creation itself testifies of God's power and nature.

Jesus also told the disciples that they would be guided to truth by the Holy Spirit.

So just when and where did God decree that scripture and only scripture would be the single channel of divine communication?

However, if one dismisses the Scriptures from being taken as they are read...in the way they were written within their orginal context, they remove themselves from the source of know how God loves us, wants us to love Him, and our neighbor.

And just what do you mean by this again? How do you know you are reading the scriptures in the way they were written within their original context? Is this not something you are assuming? Or rather are you not assuming that people who disagree with your reading are dismissing God's revelation, when all they are really doing is disagreeing with you.

What does this whole idea of "taking the scriptures as read" come down to other than "agreeing with my way of reading scripture"?

If it's denial a of this world's reality which even it becomes engulfed and within instead relies on God and His promises, gladly.

You will have to rephrase this if you expect me to understand it.

This world is not slated to last you realize?

But while it's here, it is real.

Oh, I forgot. That is my assumption, not yours.

 

[Critias]

That verse contradicts your statement as it speaks of preaching the gospel, not of reading the scriptures. The writer to the Hebrews would disagree with you to, for he says that long ago, God spoke in many and various ways and has now spoken by his Son.

And those various ways are spoken about in the Bible.

And Paul tells the Romans that even those who have not the law have not excuse for their sins, since creation itself testifies of God's power and nature.

And creation is to point to God, not to man's accomplishments of his new found knowledge about creation.

Jesus also told the disciples that they would be guided to truth by the Holy Spirit.

And they were and are.

So just when and where did God decree that scripture and only scripture would be the single channel of divine communication?

When did God decree that the interpretations of scientist would correct Genesis' teachings?

 

[night2day]

I agree with everything you have said in this post. But go through those biblical definitions of faith again. There is not one that defines faith as "believing what you know ain't so." Not one says you must deny your sensory observations or discard sound reason.

Even though, to give an example, believing that a virgin concieved, bore, and gave birth to a son would deny sensory observation or discard just plain reason.

How many OB-GYNs and other liscined doctors would testify a virgin concieving and giving birth would go against anything they personally saw or know as phycisians?

And yet Mary, when she was informed by the angel she would "concieve and bare a son" even though she was a virgin", simply believed and trusted God despite what her sensons or human reason were telling her. (ref Luke 1: 28-38)

This was the main differance between Announcements the angel Gabriel gave to both her and Zacheriah, the priest who was told he and his elderly wife would be the parents of the forerunner of the Messiah: who the Gospels refer to as John the Baptist.

Zacheriah was struck dumb when he asked the same question Mary would later ask. And he remained that way until the baby was born. (ref Luke 1:5-23; 57-64) His question was asked in unbelief, demanding a sign. Mary's wasn't.

Faith is presented consistently as believing what is not seen; it is never about rejecting what is seen. Faith is beyond reason; it is never against reason.

See above.

Faith is an act of the heart; reason is an act of the head. Both have their place, but it is the heart, God's heart of love for us, and our heartfelt response of love for God, that is the essence of faith.

However, you're seem to be saying faith all falls to us. That we grasp it, we maintain it, and we rely on faith. Yet, The Holy Spirit is the one who both draws us to faith and aids in maintaining our faith. Further, focus should never be placed on faith itself, but the focus of the faith: Jesus Christ.

Otherwise, human frailty and human will is being relied on. And that will always fail. It's all it can do.

 

[night2day]

Actually, it is a question of other factors also contributing such as the massive volcanoes that were occurring in India at the time, creating the Deccan highlands. Both factors would have impacted the climate for some time.

It still stands you were neither there to wittness nor observe it for yourself. You rely on others and choose whether or not to believe their accounts.

You are being silly. How do you study an impact crater without studying what it impacted--IOW what was there before? A crater has to be a crater in something after all. And the impact fractures have to be made in existing rock formations.

See above. Point is, you're still making guesses about the meteor and the full effects it had without knowing what the area was like before it hit. You did admit it may have affected the dinosaurs dramtically at one point as well. Yet, many evolutionists would claim man did not exist at the time of the dinosaurs. So, where does data the from that time come from? The data that is recorded now is immaterial since time has certainly passed between then and now.

And a fracture in the earth can be affected by anything over that time, not ever allowing anyone of us to know just how large the impact was.

If you feel that's silly, that's you're option, noy mine.

Producing evidence may not change a person's mind (you are evidence of that)...

I wasn't aware you were so bitter to the fact not everyone followed the evolution chorus.

I haven't even seen any other interpretation of the evidence I have presented. So, how can I have demonstrated I will not accept a different interpretation.

You just did. Denial.

They state the age of the person at the birth of his son and the total length of his life. Can you provide an example of an overlap?

Since you discard Genesis 10 which does just that, there's not much of a point.

Irrelevant. The biblical genealogy gives the total length of Adam's life as 930 years. And that he was 130 when Seth was born, an event that had to take place 15 years after leaving Eden, at a minimum. That allows for more than a century in Eden. Though we cannot be certain it was that long.

Had to take place. Cannot be certain. I'm wondering if you're even listening to yourself.

And civilizations leave evidence of their existence. So below the flood sediments we should find evidence of pre-flood civilizations.

Odd that during hurricane Katrina some towns along the coast were all swept away, leaving practically no trace of them left. And your stating a global flood actually would?

Not according to Ussher's date. If the flood occurred, as he estimated, in 2347 BCE, the Egyptian civilization was already nearly 700 years old, and that is only counting from the beginning of the 1st dynasty of a united Egypt. There were people living in the Nile Valley long before that.

And people living at the Nile just had to be Egyptions because--? As much as Ussher's work is reveared by many creationists, there's some doubts of the timing. If I recall correctly he was also the one who stated God began creating the world in the month that would later become known as October, and he also listed the date and time. Which, of course, the Bible never had given. Only created the world in 6 days.

Ironically, creation is the only time the word usage of day is ever disputed within the Bible. As if the literary context of the passage as well as those referring back to it aren't enough to establish what the passage meant.

Now if you want to be very radical and suggest that Ussher was quite wrong in his dating, you might place creation and the flood somewhat earlier. But you still run into the same problem of civilizations all over the world already existing and going on about their business, with no sign of being interrupted by a flood.

For someone who has stressed time and again the Genesis creation and the flood are a myth, I wonder why all of a sudden your holding up Ussher's work in such hihg esteem.

Especially since Ussher himself accepted the Genesis 6 day creation and flood as historic events which occured.

I'm not bound or obligated to go by your choice of sources. Archiologists have disagreed of what civilization emerged when and are apt to change rime and again their original numbers when they come across new information.

Come to think of it, I noticed you haven't named which civilizations were in place according to Ussher either. Naming that human beings lived near where is not enough. Yet instead of quoting Ussher on this point you go to other sources. If you're going to stick with what the man states and attempt to disprove him, you might as well go by all of what he wrote on the topic, not just certain portions.

And before you think I may not have my own source to look up regarding what he's written...I happen to have a copy of Ussher's Annuals of the World on my bookshelf that can be easily looked up.

 

[night2day]

How about all the observations in the links above?

How about God's wittness within the Scriptures?

A hoax is not a mistake. A hoax is a deliberately planned fraud...An honest mistake is not a hoax.

Jumping to conclusion regarding findings and passing them off as reliable testimoney...only to realize they are in error constitutes as a hoax.

There have quite a few scientists who have jumped the gun so to speak and have declared a "missing link" discovered which supports their pre-biased evolutionary theories. Only to later be proven in the wrong in the finding.

If you don't care for the definition...nothing I can do about that.

You have just described the transition from reptiles to mammals as microevolution.

Nope. As a side, same species remains the same species. Such as cats remain cats and dogs remain dogs. Neither emerging or changing into the other.

Yet each species able to have minute changes within their own.

Where you took that and gave the definition for Macroevolution, when one species changes to another, I don't want to know.

Scripture doesn't say they came from underground. It refers to the "fountains of the deep" IOW the source of ocean waters.

In your own way of reading you mean. Look up the word "fountain" sometime.

Not answered. Where in the flood story does the scripture speak of earthquakes or plates shifting or land masses breaking apart?

If you want to ignore previous posts where I already commented on the matter, tis not my concern.

It is not immaterial and I am not making assumptions.

I see it differantly.

You have been given the evidence that there was a flourishing Egyptian nation at the usual estimated date of the flood.

Nope. I've been given someone's beliefs on interpretations regarding whatever evidence was left of those civilizations....followed by an interpretation by a man named Ussher who set his own timing for the flood when the Bible doesn't indicate when it happened, only it was early on in human history. Not well into as you claimed.

You're going have to do better if you're going to attempt to mish-mash your own beliefs and attempt to discredit the Scriptural account by using a third source. While how many times earlier did I ask the Bible be used by itself?

I teach literature. I know what literary means. I know how to identify different types of literature. I know a myth when I read it, and the flood story in the bible is a myth.

Yet there is nothing within the account itself which states it is a myth. In all places of Scripture it indicates by the literary context how it is to be read.

The flood story seems to be read as a myth only because you chose to believe it is a myth, nothing more.

Are you saying that only those who do read scripture as you do take scripture to be God's inerrant, infallible word?

Asked and answered.

Please stop side-stepping this issue.

Please stop treating the Scriptures as relative with countless interpretations being valid when the Author only has only declared one. "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace..."

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."
Hebrews 4:12

​

Scripture interprets nothing.

You're belief, not mine.

That verse contradicts your statement as it speaks of preaching the gospel, not of reading the scriptures. The writer to the Hebrews would disagree with you to, for he says that long ago, God spoke in many and various ways and has now spoken by his Son.

You contridict yourself I'm afraid. For much of Hebrews were does the writer turn but the Scriptures.

Just as Jesus often refered to those Scriptures during His Earthly ministry.

Just as the Scriptures tell us exactly in what way God has spoken: "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son..."

And Paul tells the Romans that even those who have not the law have not excuse for their sins, since creation itself testifies of God's power and nature.

The passage you refer to:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. or the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools"
​

Creation declares God's power. But, it does not show redemption through Christ alone by grace, through faith in Him. Creation only displays God's mighty and awesome works. Not His mercy and grace.

Also note the passage above speaks of those who knew God and rejected God and turned to idols. It also informs what happens next.

And in the following chapter:

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another..."
​

(emphisis mine)

What does this whole idea of "taking the scriptures as read" come down to...

Just that.

n2d:
...this world is not slated to last you realize...

But while it's here, it is real.

Oh, I forgot. That is my assumption, not yours.

Your problem if you feel the need to get snide because I don't and won't share your worldview. Doesn't mean I have to offer more to the conversation should there be more rude comments either.

 

[gluadys]

And those various ways are spoken about in the Bible.

And creation is to point to God, not to man's accomplishments of his new found knowledge about creation.

And they were and are.

Exactly. So the bible itself contradicts the proposition that it is the only means by which God communicates with us.

When did God decree that the interpretations of scientist would correct Genesis' teachings?

When Jesus referred to himself as the Truth and to the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Truth. When God, in all persons of the Trinity is referred to as creator, and whenever creation is appealed to as a witness of God's soveriegn power and majesty.

From all this it follows that whenever scientists have come to a true interpretation of nature, it is God's truth about nature.

Would you not say the same of any true interpretation of scripture--i.e. that it is God's truth?

 

[gluadys]

Even though, to give an example, believing that a virgin concieved, bore, and gave birth to a son would deny sensory observation or discard just plain reason.

No it wouldn't.

The matter of the virgin birth is the same as that of the resurrection. Observation tells us that a virgin does not normally give birth. It does not tell us that a virgin cannot give birth when overshadowed by power of the Holy Spirit. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that extraordinary things can happen in extraordinary circumstances.

However, you're seem to be saying faith all falls to us.

I am sorry you got that impression. It is quite the opposite, not only of my belief, but of my experience. I once did have the idea, nurtured by strong exposure to televangelists and evangelical preaching, that faith was something like a muscle that needed to be exercised to be made strong and that if I tried hard enough I would get enough faith to be saved.

But finally I grasped what Paul was really saying about faith. He was not pointing to faith as the agent of salvation. The agent of salvation is God's grace: "by grace are you saved...." And God's grace is God's sovereign gift. Faith is the trusting attitude that accepts salvation as a gift of God's grace instead of trying to earn it by obedience to the law or the performance of good works. When I stopped trying to muster up faith, and relied entirely on God's grace, then I knew salvation...and faith. And just as grace provides faith for salvation, grace sustains faith. In short, it is God who saves, and God who keeps those saved from falling again into sin. That is my experience.

 

[gluadys]

It still stands you were neither there to wittness nor observe it for yourself. You rely on others and choose whether or not to believe their accounts.

Just as we rely on others (the apostles and evangelists) to tell us the good news of salvation and choose whether or not to believe their accounts. If its good enough for the most important news of all, why is it not good enough for less important information, like the age of the earth or whether there was a global flood?

Furthermore, the apostles gave us only their testimony. Scientists give us evidence to support their testimony.

See above. Point is, you're still making guesses about the meteor and the full effects it had without knowing what the area was like before it hit.

Just as you are making guesses about the resurrection of Jesus since you were not personally at the empty tomb or in the upper room when he appeared to the disciples. We both depend on those who have seen with their own eyes.

And yes, geologists can see with their own eyes both the impacted and non-impacted rock and so can tell what the area was like before as well as after the impact of the meteor.

Yet, many evolutionists would claim man did not exist at the time of the dinosaurs. So, where does data the from that time come from?

No remnant of a dinosaur has been found less than 65 million years old. No remnant of a human has been found (including all species of Homo) more than 8 million years old. That is present-day, existing, observable data.

The data that is recorded now is immaterial since time has certainly passed between then and now.

By that criterion, everything recorded in the bible is immaterial since time has certainly passed between its writing and now. In addition, much of it was written well after the events it speaks of, even when it is speaking at its most historical. So, by your parameters it is a worthless document.

And a fracture in the earth can be affected by anything over that time, not ever allowing anyone of us to know just how large the impact was.

You didn't check the link did you. The size of the impact is well-known. And a lot has happened over time. The crater itself was filled in with sediment so that it was not obvious by earthbound observation. Yet it is still evident in satellite photos.

Geological events leave geological traces. So even if new events re-shape the original evidence, they leave evidence of the re-shaping, and the geological history can be reconstructed. Much the same way as dectectives can re-construct a crime scene from the evidence left behind.

Because you refuse to investigate what tools scientists can use, you are unaware of how much history can be reliably reconstructed.

But waving away this evidence is only a psychological defence; it doesn't mean the evidence is not there. It is merely a refusal to accept it for what it is, because you do not want to deal with the implications of the truth.

You just did.

I have not seen any other interpretation of the evidence I have provided in this thread. I have seen side-stepping, denial and hand-waving, but no other interpretation of the evidence.

If I have missed it, please be considerate enough to give the page and post number in which you presented it.

Since you discard Genesis 10...

Earlier in this thread there was an ugly discussion about name-calling. It was initiated when you mis-represented the position of theistic evolutionists in regard to scripture. You were informed then that we do NOT discard scripture.

Yet here you make the false statement that I discard Genesis 10.

Please withdraw this false statement, since I do not discard Genesis 10 or any other part of scripture. I consider every part of scripture to be given by God, through inspiration, for our benefit.

As to Genesis 10, it is irrelevant to any recording of overlaps in generational dating since it is a list of names only, without numerical references. The genealogies relevant to dating the flood are those in Genesis 5 where the age of the person at the time of the birth of one of their children (presumably, in most cases, the first-born son) and the age at death is given.

which does just that, there's not much of a point.

Whether there is a point in providing the information asked for is irrelevant. If the information exists, you can provide it. If you cannot find the information asked for, you can admit it, rather than hiding behind excuses.

Had to take place. Cannot be certain. I'm wondering if you're even listening to yourself.

Obviously you are not listening to me. Did you note that "had to take place" refers to one matter (how long after the expulsion from Eden the birth of Seth took place) and "cannot be certain" refers to a different matter (how much of the century prior to Seth's birth Adam and Eve spent in Eden)? So the two phrases do not in any way contradict each other.

According to the text, Seth was born when Adam was 130. That is a given whether the expulsion from Eden took place 15 years earlier or 55 years earlier or 95 years earlier. What is certain is that the expulsion from Eden must have occurred at least 15 years earlier.

Odd that during hurricane Katrina some towns along the coast were all swept away, leaving practically no trace of them left. And your stating a global flood actually would?

Depends on the nature of the buildings and infrastructure. I expect that even in those disappeared towns, investigators can still find the sewer lines for example. A devastating flood in the area of the Black Sea 7500 years ago left some human remains and remnants of housing. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...oken=f4d87eb901dbf0e754609eaa960b9c7a62c40bef
So I see no reason why a global flood would not leave remnants of pyramids and ziggurats built before the flood occurred as this type of building would have been fairly resistant to erosion.

And people living at the Nile just had to be Egyptions because--?

Because they were living in Egypt.

I am not saying the name was used then. It doesn't matter what they called themselves or their country. The point is they were there. And they were there continually, with no gap due to a global flood. As far as I know, the name "Egypt" is derived from the Greek name for the territory.

Ironically, creation is the only time the word usage of day is ever disputed within the Bible. As if the literary context of the passage as well as those referring back to it aren't enough to establish what the passage meant.

I am not quibbling with what the passage means. I do not agree with those who contend that the author meant anything other than a solar day. The question is whether those solar days are historical or not. The literary context strongly suggests they are not intended to be historical, but a foundation for sabbatical theology.

For someone who has stressed time and again the Genesis creation and the flood are a myth, I wonder why all of a sudden your holding up Ussher's work in such hihg esteem.

It is a matter of showing how inconsistent Ussher's calculations are with history. And any dating anywhere close to those of Ussher's.

Especially since Ussher himself accepted the Genesis 6 day creation and flood as historic events which occured.

And since his dating of these events is completely incompatible with confirmed historical events, we can conclude that he was wrong, at the very least about the dating. And, as I have re-iterated again and again, no matter where you look in history, be it human, biological or geological, there is no evidence of a global flood and there is evidence contradictory to a global flood.

I'm not bound or obligated to go by your choice of sources. Archiologists have disagreed of what civilization emerged when and are apt to change rime and again their original numbers when they come across new information.

What is the extent of their disagreement? And what criteria are they using? If they are disputing the beginning of Neolithic civilization and differ by 500 years, that is not much over a period of 8,000 years.

Come to think of it, I noticed you haven't named which civilizations were in place according to Ussher either.

Ussher used the biblical text. He thought all known civilizations developed post-flood. This was before archeological studies showed otherwise.

 

[Saucy]

Why do we have mutations? Because of the curse. Remember the curse? It was put on all of creation.

 

[gluadys]

Why do we have mutations? Because of the curse. Remember the curse? It was put on all of creation.

How do you get this? What relates mutations, especially neutral and beneficial mutations to a curse? And what about mutations that are harmful in one respect but beneficial in another? Or harmful in one environment but neutral or beneficial in another?

Its pretty wierd to think of mutations in general as a curse when only 2-3% are harmful and even those may not be harmful in all circumstances.

Do you feel cursed by the hundred or so mutations you were born with?

Do you realize that without mutations, species could not adapt to new environments, and you could not get many different species from the few "kinds" on the ark?

 

[Critias]

Exactly. So the bible itself contradicts the proposition that it is the only means by which God communicates with us.

What I was saying is that Bible tells us how God communicates with us. The Bible never says that it is the only source of communication between Him an us. Neither does it say that non-believers will be His spokesmen either.

When Jesus referred to himself as the Truth and to the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Truth. When God, in all persons of the Trinity is referred to as creator, and whenever creation is appealed to as a witness of God's soveriegn power and majesty.

From all this it follows that whenever scientists have come to a true interpretation of nature, it is God's truth about nature.

Would you not say the same of any true interpretation of scripture--i.e. that it is God's truth?

And as you can see, it is your assumption that scientists have a true interpretation of nature. This would conclude that they are not wrong, therefore no further evidence found would ever prove otherwise. Rather closed minded for people who say they are not.

True interpretation only comes by faith. Faith that only God gives and is not man attained. It is faith in God that He has lead us, but this can only be attained when we surrender our complete selves to Him. When we choose to hold onto our pride of knowledge instead of lending Him an ear, we are not surrendering to Him. And in doing so, we won't be lead because we are fighting against it.

I don't think you are even aware of what you have truly stated here - that what scientist say is a true interpretation of nature. They may believe it is true, but it doesn't make it true. Evidence can always turn up that lends a different interpretation that proves past beliefs to be false. If you accept this than you can never make the statement that scientist have a true interpretation of nature.