blamb

I was referring to your comment, "Again.... religious views of science are fine as long as they stay within the religion. I'm not looking for converts (well other than family but I already won that one)." The point I'm trying to get across is that there is not such thing as religeous truth that is seperate from scientific truth. Truth is truth. Behind every religious truth, there is a scientific explanation (above what we currently understand in the scientific sense). God does understand the science behind what he does and how he operates, we don't. We don't have to understand all the science behind something to know something is there also. Science works with repeated phenomena all the time without having a total understanding of what is going on. Religion has produced many truths before science has discovered the same truths. We would do ourselves well to trust in the revealed word of God to help us in our scientific quests so that we don't get off on the wrong track. There is much not revealed behind the science of how things work but that does not mean that the religeous explanation of things are incorrect. If you believe in God and that he can reveal knowledge to people then what I have said should make sense to you.

Don't understand your point and the argument for it? Got an example?

Science can explain all these things that were mentioned if we had the knowledge and the capcity to understand the science. Truth is truth even if we don't understand it. I'm sure that all the miracles ever performed were performed by action on some law that brought about the consequence. We simply don't know or don't have the capacity to do this but God does. As far as legitimate science goes, man has been wrong on many accounts and what is considered legitamate science today may be proved wrong tomorrow. The book I mentioned, "Science and Mormonism" has some very detailed scientific explanations for some things like Pangea splitting up not long ago and also some possible mechanisms for the deluge. There are other books also like PEM (pre-earth model I believe, by non-LDS authors), quoted in the book that I mentioned that has some very convincing scientific evidence of a young earth (thousands of years). There is a lot of great scientific evidence that counters uniformitarianism (old earth model) and that counters evolution. Be careful what you say are facts!

The Bible says that in the days of Peleg the earth was divided (shortly after the flood). There very well could have not been very tall mountains when the deluge happened. See "Science and Mormonism" by Melvin Cook for one scientists viewpoint on the subject and some pretty interesting hypothesis on how it could have physically happened and also evidence of it having happened.