Let's Talk Rainbows

[_SteelHead]

I like it........
Sub -> no proof of rainbows before flood.

Me -> link to 8000 year old aboriginal cave art of rainbow predating flood by 2K - 4K years depending on chronology.

Sub -> the church does not teach a global flood.

US -> bunch of evidence from scripture and prophets showing that the church teaches a global flood.

Earth was baptized -> baptism is by immersion -> JSF said immersion means the whole planet was dunked -> tons of other quotes backing this -> ergo flood was global is LDS doctrine.

Sub -> I win.

Wow. Just wow. He won? What was his prize?

[_Buffalo]

I like it........
Sub -> no proof of rainbows before flood.

Me -> link to 8000 year old aboriginal cave art of rainbow predating flood by 2K - 4K years depending on chronology.

Sub -> the church does not teach a global flood.

US -> bunch of evidence from scripture and prophets showing that the church teaches a global flood.

Earth was baptized -> baptism is by immersion -> JSF said immersion means the whole planet was dunked -> tons of other quotes backing this -> ergo flood was global is LDS doctrine.

Sub -> I win.

Wow. Just wow. He won? What was his prize?

[_DrW]

I like it........
Sub -> no proof of rainbows before flood.

Me -> link to 8000 year old aboriginal cave art of rainbow predating flood by 2K - 4K years depending on chronology.

Sub -> the church does not teach a global flood.

US -> bunch of evidence from scripture and prophets showing that the church teaches a global flood.

Earth was baptized -> baptism is by immersion -> JSF said immersion means the whole planet was dunked -> tons of other quotes backing this -> ergo flood was global is LDS doctrine.

Sub -> I win.

Wow. Just wow. He won? What was his prize?

Careful, Steelhead - don't go all RATIONAL on us now.

[_bcuzbcuz]

..I do not believe in anything....other than my conviction ...

Game, set, and match, my friend.
Thanks for playing.....next

You're right, you win. Congratulations. No, I mean it, congratulations.

[_keithb]

...Wait a minute, Genesis 2:6 says there was a mist that watered the earth. Are we to believe that no one, ever, saw anything similar to a rainbow in this mist?

Think back to water sprinklers....mist.... When was the last time you looked at a mist? Did you see a rainbow?

I find it hard to believe that the physical properties of light dispersion were voided for the 1500+ years between Adam and Noah. Anyone here with an opinion?

If you are truly interested then you can read this. It is a theory about light and how it traveled through space differently in the past.

http://www.setterfield.org/report/report.html

But more important is this paper.

http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/a ... s_5349.pdf

I can dismiss the first paper out of hand by noting that, if the speed of light is a function of time as proposed in the first paper, the effects would be highly evident through observation of the light propagating from distant stars (i.e. there would be a huge Doppler shift that coincided with the change that would propagate from closer to further away stars).

Also puzzling in the first paper is that the very data that he shows directly contradicts the argument that the speed of light is changing in time. Specifically, the Mainly laser experiment data directly contradicts his claim of 1.62 Km/year because the precision of the measurements are good enough (and the measurements themselves widely enough separated in time) that such a trend would have been easily demonstrable in that data, yet the trend was not seen.

The second paper -- from a more reputable source -- talks about a change in the propagation of light with the expansion of the universe. As the universe is several billion years old (and thus several billion light years across), it's hard to imagine that the size of the universe would have changed appreciably enough to affect the speed of light in any serious way in the last 5,000 years.

Also, none of this has to do with rainbows and the supposed lack of them before the flood of Noah.

[_SteelHead]

I like it........
Sub -> no proof of rainbows before flood.

Me -> link to 8000 year old aboriginal cave art of rainbow predating flood by 2K - 4K years depending on chronology.

Sub -> the church does not teach a global flood.

US -> bunch of evidence from scripture and prophets showing that the church teaches a global flood.

Earth was baptized -> baptism is by immersion -> JSF said immersion means the whole planet was dunked -> tons of other quotes backing this -> ergo flood was global is LDS doctrine.

Sub -> I win.

Wow. Just wow. He won? What was his prize?

Careful, Steelhead - don't go all RATIONAL on us now.

Sorry, guess I am just silly that way.

[_keithb]

That being said, aren't you really missing the point of the story?

A fable about the first wine maker combined with a fable about a global flood?

No, I think the point of the story is that God is going to murder all of us if we piss him off.

[_SteelHead]

The good news is that next time he has promised to destroy all creation with a fire.

[_canpakes]

obviously you have no access to a dictionary, here is a link
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exist
And obviously you have limited that definition to that which is only "empirically evidenced and proven" and "observable, repeatable and reviewed by qualified learned men"....which simply confirms my previous statement about those narrow-minded and limited individuals who subscribe to the "has to" view of science.
Aside from the glaring fact that anyone would consider issues of religion needing to have "empirical" evidence proves that one may be ill-equipped for an actual discussion about religion. For most theological discussions, this is a fundamental knowledge brought to a grown-up table.
You see, even the most inept scientist realizes that the wrong method applied will yield incorrect results.
I suggest you study the concept clearly stated in Hebrews 11:6

Now unfortunately you have also failed to see the inherent scientific fallacy in your statements, because the "supernatural" can also not be empirically evidenced, proven, etc...to NOT exist....a more agnostic approach yes, and one that any good "pensioner" would be aware of (in the USA typically referred to as a retiree). At least an agnostic is intellectually more honest albeit while straddling the fence. The one thing one must admit about science is that it can never prove the non-existence of anything.

I will concede your point if you can empirically evidence and prove with experiments to be conducted that are observable, repeatable and reviewed by qualified learned men that the following "exist":
1. Logic and/or mathematics
2. Ethical beliefs
3. Aesthetic judgments
4. Science (itself) and/or the scientific method
5. That any person loves any other person (ie. perhaps you have a spouse, and perhaps you claim that you love that spouse, but you can not prove that)

You would have us believe that "truth" "real" and "exist" are simply that which is a probabilistic prediction......wow, the irony is delicious.

Well, that settles it. Everything is relative and there really is no conviction about anything that can be trusted by the self. So much for the idea of even God, or a 'true church'.

Trying to use "science" as means to disprove the existence of God or the supernatural is just clumsy....it is rather like the guy who brings a knife to gun fight. The unjustified opinion that God does not exist is nothing more than an assumption.

This, from the man who cannot accept that any scientific reality exists at all.

It would appear that SubG had to duck out early from the thread due to cutting himself accidentally on his own knife.

[_bcuzbcuz]

@ bcuzbcuz,

A passage from a letter that Albert Einstein wrote to a friend regarding Einstein's belief in his cosmological constant went something like this:

Conviction is a good mainspring, but a bad judge.

Thanks for your insight. I had not seen that quote from Einstein before.

I should have stated that I believe in nothing but the fallibility and foolishness of all.......but would have probably been misquoted in that as well.