Let's Talk Rainbows

[_subgenius]

...
My conclusion from this is that anyone's ability to deduce what was or wasn't during these years must be nothing more than conjecture.
...

which has been my point.
To assume that rainbows were NOT created by God is conjecture, and conversely one might consider the same to be true....but....the scriptures clearly state otherwise, so there is no absence of evidence for that cause, and one can only argue about the interpretation.

[_subgenius]

...
There is zero possibility that any global flood happened in the course of human civilization.

There is enough water on earth for a global flood. If the earth was smoothed out, the water in the oceans would cover it to a depth of about 8,813 feet (2.6 kilometres). This does not include the water in rivers, lakes, glaciers, and other sources. They would add about another 2–3 thousand feet (600-900 metres). In reality, the Flood would only need to be a little over 7,000 feet (2.1 kilometres) deep.
So the real question is whether it is possible for Mount Everest to have risen to its current height fast enough to fit a time-scale consistent with the Flood. The earthquake that caused the Indonesian tsunami of December 26, 2004 caused an uplift of at least 20 feet (six metres) in a few minutes, which is a speed of about 240 feet per hour (84 metres per hour). At that rate Mount Everest could have reached its current height in about five days. Forces observed in earthquakes are sufficient, if extended long enough, to quickly raise the highest mountain to its current height in just a few days.
The result is that, based on the amount of water on earth, and observed tectonic forces, there was the potential to quickly raise mountains. So the global Flood of the Bible is theoretically possible

yet another outlandish claim from Buffalot dismantled for what it is
and once again....you lose

[Guest]

So the global Flood of the Bible is theoretically possible...

...to have happened between 2,300 bc and 2,400 bc as the Church teaches.

This is what you believe, right?

[_bcuzbcuz]

...
My conclusion from this is that anyone's ability to deduce what was or wasn't during these years must be nothing more than conjecture.
...

which has been my point.
To assume that rainbows were NOT created by God is conjecture, and conversely one might consider the same to be true....but....the scriptures clearly state otherwise, so there is no absence of evidence for that cause, and one can only argue about the interpretation.

There you say it all. At least from your point of view, that the scriptures are evidence.

But there is, literally no way, that you can convey your view to me (or anyone else). It is alike to you seeing something through a kaleidoscope that you want others to see. In your transferring the kaleidoscope from your view to mine (or others) you, unavoidably, and repeatably, give the kaleidoscope a shake. Allow me to press this similitude one step further. Even when you've handed over the kaleidoscope to someone else, with the utmost of care, there is no way to be sure that what they see coincides to what you saw.

I stopped believing in scripture when I realized that I didn't need, neither kaleidoscope nor someone to tell me, what it was that I was supposed to see. My wife left the Mormons because she knew that her fight for equality for all races could not fit within the narrow bounds of Mormon policy. I left, despite more than thirty years of faithful service, mission included, because temple ceremonies violate many basic Mormon concepts.

Scriptures state very little that is "clear". It covers the gamut from "Thou shalt not kill" and then sending off young men to war, like 1 Chronicles 20:3 or Numbers 25:3-4 or like Viet Nam and Iraq, all with the churches blessing. Try on the story of the "Good Samaritan" with it's definition of who is your neighbor, and then listen to the advice when you go on to the temple grounds to "do not give to the beggars outside the gate, it will only encourage them."

But I digress. Scripture, if you wish it to to be evidence, must be given scrutiny. If this evidence is found lacking or untrustworthy, then the whole of its testimony is called into question. Noah was to take on animals (Genesis 6) two of each kind, to the ark. But then in chapter 7 he's supposed to take in seven each of the clean. This does not seem to be either precise or clear. This whole discussion about rainbows is rife in evidence of the Bible first saying one thing then recounting and saying another.

If the Bible stated things clearly there wouldn't be literally thousands of interpretations and thousands of churches. There are even a whole bunch of different Mormon churches running around, each with their own prophet.

[_Buffalo]

...
There is zero possibility that any global flood happened in the course of human civilization.

There is enough water on earth for a global flood. If the earth was smoothed out, the water in the oceans would cover it to a depth of about 8,813 feet (2.6 kilometres). This does not include the water in rivers, lakes, glaciers, and other sources. They would add about another 2–3 thousand feet (600-900 metres). In reality, the Flood would only need to be a little over 7,000 feet (2.1 kilometres) deep.
So the real question is whether it is possible for Mount Everest to have risen to its current height fast enough to fit a time-scale consistent with the Flood. The earthquake that caused the Indonesian tsunami of December 26, 2004 caused an uplift of at least 20 feet (six metres) in a few minutes, which is a speed of about 240 feet per hour (84 metres per hour). At that rate Mount Everest could have reached its current height in about five days. Forces observed in earthquakes are sufficient, if extended long enough, to quickly raise the highest mountain to its current height in just a few days.
The result is that, based on the amount of water on earth, and observed tectonic forces, there was the potential to quickly raise mountains. So the global Flood of the Bible is theoretically possible

yet another outlandish claim from Buffalot dismantled for what it is
and once again....you lose

I noticed you didn't bother to cite your wingbat source. But what I was referring to was the fact that all world civilizations at the time of the flood continued on as normal. No mass death, no destruction, nothing.

[_Drifting]

To assume that rainbows were NOT created by God is conjecture, and conversely one might consider the same to be true....but....the scriptures clearly state otherwise, so there is no absence of evidence for that cause, and one can only argue about the interpretation.

Hmmm...scripture is evidence of fact is it...

So is this 'clearly stated' account evidence that Eve was created from one of Adam's limbs?

21 And I, the Lord God, caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam; and he slept, and I took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh in the stead thereof;
22 And the rib which I, the Lord God, had taken from man, made I a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said: This I know now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man.

Moses 3 - Which I think you believe to be scripture.

Or is it evidence of somone writing down a myth, like this suggests?

The detailed description of the creation of Adam and Eve describes their relationship as “corresponding to each other” and prescribes the ideal of unity between a man and woman. The significance of this phrase “help meet” is that the woman is a creation who is a fitting and proper companion for Adam because she is like him and corresponds to him. This concept is further solidified by the description of the creation of woman as being formed from the rib of Adam—a rib being a metaphor for a person corresponding to Adam. Modern prophets have taught that the creation of woman from the rib of the man is to be taken figuratively. (See Spencer W. Kimball, Ensign, Mar. 1976, p. 71.)

*LDS.org*

So, if you don't know if scripture is historical fact or fiction (which you don't) how can you use it as reliable evidence?

[_subgenius]

Or is it evidence of somone writing down a myth, like this suggests?

... the creation of woman from the rib of the man is to be taken figuratively. (See Spencer W. Kimball, Ensign, Mar. 1976, p. 71.)

*LDS.org*

So, if you don't know if scripture is historical fact or fiction (which you don't) how can you use it as reliable evidence?

First, google the word "myth" and then realize that how you propose to use it is incorrect and without support. If you claim it is a myth then prove it, with particular emphasis on how it is "without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation".
Your consistent perpetuation of deceit is growing weary on those of us with mental faculties.

Then i suggest you ponder 1 Cor 2:14, because it is becoming more and more evident that it can be applied to your posts.

[_Drifting]

I'm going to avoid answering the question because I'm trapped

I'm paraphrasing for you but that's the gist of what you said...

For reference, here was the question:

So, if you don't know if scripture is historical fact or fiction (which you don't) how can you use it as reliable evidence?

[_Drifting]

Your consistent perpetuation of deceit is growing weary on those of us with mental faculties.

CFR

(on the deceit bit, I've already got more than enough evidence on your mental fatuities)

[_DrW]

Your consistent perpetuation of deceit is growing weary on those of us with mental faculties.

subgenius,

Really?

Is Drifting's perpetuation of deceit growing weary?

Or did you intend to say that you are growing weary or Drifting's perpetuation of deceit?

Some of us are growing weary of watching you butcher the English language.