Let's Talk Rainbows

[_subgenius]

Jeffrey Holland in the Ensign in 1976:

Holy scripture records that “after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof.” (Ether 13:2.) Such a special place needed now to be kept apart from other regions, free from the indiscriminate traveler as well as the soldier of fortune.

To guarantee such sanctity the very surface of the earth was rent. In response to God’s decree, the great continents separated and the ocean rushed in to surround them.

The promised place was set apart. Without habitation it waited for the fulfillment of God’s special purposes.

So this Book of Mormon scripture tells us that during the Flood of Noah, water covered the face of the land in the western hemisphere. Sounds global to me.

before or after the continents separated?

[_SteelHead]

The links i have provided are evidence that my position is more accurate within the church than the balderdash being posted to the contrary.

Are you saying that the words of the prophets are balderdash?

[_DrW]

So this Book of Mormon scripture tells us that during the Flood of Noah, water covered the face of the land in the western hemisphere. Sounds global to me.

before or after the continents separated?

What?

What difference does it make?

Holland's claim that the continents of the eastern and western hemisphere were formed in a catastrophic separation of the Earth's surface less than 10,000 years ago is so silly that it makes a global flood look reasonable by comparison.

Mormon truth claims such as this science whopper are just embarrassing. Would you not agree?

[_subgenius]

QUESTION!

If the flood was NOT global, what was the covenant/promise deal with the rainbow?

If it was a promise never to allow a LOCAL flood again...hasn't that been broken about a million times?

the covenant, and the lesson from the flood story, is not about the expanse, depth, or flavor of the water which covered the earth, but rather the notion that people were eradicated for the widespread wickedness...that God "wiped clean" the earth....which was the point of the flood....not to remove dirt, but rather to remove people from wherever they may be, to convey that God's flood was much more than a heavy rain or hyperbole.
Just as many of us may be sincere about our own "world", about how we can feel like we are the king of it, or how it can crash down around us, we must recognize that context...the cosmological perception of the time and the dramatic limitation of that time's language, and the lessons and knowledge that we have been blessed to learn since then. I may or may not agree with the idea of the flood being either global or local, does not really matter, what matters is that i agree that the wickedness which had consumed the earth to an intolerable degree was removed. The amusement of arguing about the doctrine "gopher wood" has long passed, but i understand the deep seated personal desire many have in persisting that they are truly truly "right" about something else being "wrong"...all i can say is good luck with that.

[_subgenius]

What?

What difference does it make?

Holland's claim that the continents of the eastern and western hemisphere were formed in a catastrophic separation of the Earth's surface less than 10,000 years ago is so silly that it makes a global flood look reasonable by comparison.

Mormon truth claims such as this science whopper are just embarrassing. Would you not agree?

catastrophic events being responsible for most of the geologic record was the primary doctrine of science until only the past century or so. The notion that geologic events take a really really really long time is relatively unsupported by actual empirical evidence and has only taken traction among the more secular minded folks trying to distance any notion of God from the equations. Which is understandable considering how the more organized churches (catholic) interfered with science in such a heavy handed manner. Never the less, i am sure you have a lot Faith in evidence that has yet to be discovered...as do i.

[_subgenius]

by the way
if anyone sees bcuzbcuz, tell him i am still waiting for "empirical proof" of the 5 things i listed before.....otherwise he can, per his own standard, concede that they actually do not exist via private message if it suits him.

[_DrW]

SG,

Again, speaking in terms of days of creation as in Genesis is just silly.

In terms of science there has been sufficient water in the atmosphere for the formation of rainbows for more than 500 million years, perhaps even a billion.

You might argue that there was really no rainbow unless a modern human saw it, so lets move forward to something like 50,000 - 100,000 years ago. Still long before the claimed date of the mythical global flood, but late enough to have a reasonable population of Homo sapiens around.

While the Earth's surface has had relatively small variations in temperature since then (enough for a few ice ages but no snowball Earth epoch), over the last 100,000 years, there has always been enough liquid water in the atmosphere to form rainbows somewhere on the Earth.

How do we know? Credible, reproducible, verifiable physical evidence from geology and paleoclimatology tell us so.

If you need a tutorial on the physics of rainbows, just ask.

[_SteelHead]

QUESTION!

If the flood was NOT global, what was the covenant/promise deal with the rainbow?

If it was a promise never to allow a LOCAL flood again...hasn't that been broken about a million times?

the covenant, and the lesson from the flood story, is not about the expanse, depth, or flavor of the water which covered the earth, but rather the notion that people were eradicated for the widespread wickedness...that God "wiped clean" the earth....which was the point of the flood....not to remove dirt, but rather to remove people from wherever they may be, to convey that God's flood was much more than a heavy rain or hyperbole.
Just as many of us may be sincere about our own "world", about how we can feel like we are the king of it, or how it can crash down around us, we must recognize that context...the cosmological perception of the time and the dramatic limitation of that time's language, and the lessons and knowledge that we have been blessed to learn since then. I may or may not agree with the idea of the flood being either global or local, does not really matter, what matters is that i agree that the wickedness which had consumed the earth to an intolerable degree was removed. The amusement of arguing about the doctrine "gopher wood" has long passed, but i understand the deep seated personal desire many have in persisting that they are truly truly "right" about something else being "wrong"...all i can say is good luck with that.

Did the flood not serve then to "baptize the Earth by immersion" ? Have we not been taught the the flesh of the Earth will again be eradicated but this time not by flood but by fire (literally and holy ghost)?

Seems like you have misconstrued the whole verbiage of the flood and the teachings of the brethren in regards to it. Mental contortionist much?

[_SteelHead]

Sub,
I got to say that the difference between you and I as I see it.

I look at the writings of the prophets/scriptures and say what a load of hughey and think they are all just talking fluff, and I readily admit I don't believe much anything anymore.

You look at the words of the prophets/scriptures; mangle, massage, bend, twist, and otherwise wrest them to fit your image of what you think they are saying as it confirms to your world view, and call me an apostate while doing it. All the while said mangling, wresting, twisting and abusing shows that you are near as far off the reservation as I am.

Good luck with that.

[_DrW]

What?

What difference does it make?

Holland's claim that the continents of the eastern and western hemisphere were formed in a catastrophic separation of the Earth's surface less than 10,000 years ago is so silly that it makes a global flood look reasonable by comparison.

Mormon truth claims such as this science whopper are just embarrassing. Would you not agree?

catastrophic events being responsible for most of the geologic record was the primary doctrine of science until only the past century or so. The notion that geologic events take a really really really long time is relatively unsupported by actual empirical evidence and has only taken traction among the more secular minded folks trying to distance any notion of God from the equations. Which is understandable considering how the more organized churches (catholic) interfered with science in such a heavy handed manner. Never the less, i am sure you have a lot Faith in evidence that has yet to be discovered...as do i.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

Really. Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound to anyone with even a good grasp of high school science, let alone a professional scientist?

Have you ever heard of stratigraphy?

What about magnetostratigraphy?

What about radioisotope/radiometric dating?

Do you understand the significance of the tight agreement between radiometric dating of terrestrial and meteorite materials?

What about ice core dating, ever heard of that?

Ever heard of helioseismic dating?

And before you go running off to some off the wall creationist website for the latest pseudoscience counterarguments, you should be aware that these folks are essentially apologists and have little, if any, credible scientific standing.

It is not possible to invent, design, and innovate based on creation science. Just remember that. Creation science (another oxymoron) is not responsible for a single piece of the modern technology that you encounter and depend upon every day.