Let's Talk Rainbows

[_Melchett]

We are still waiting for your answer to the flood date that you provided.

your answer first, please
besides i already gave the answer...just happens that you would have to do the math yourself.

My answer is that the flood story is a myth.

[_Buffalo]

Do you admit that your flood date was wrong, out of harmony with the Church's date?

If you're retreating back to questioning carbon dating, you've already lost the argument.

so, far no argument has been proposed. The OP has yet to justify the notion that rainbows have always existed.
Additionally, you have yet to actually, as previously noted, re-check your sunday school diagram as a relevant source for the church's position on the date of the flood.
My flood date is as valid as anyone else's.

Official doctrine is that which is published by the Church. That's the church's own standard. If you wish to disown the church over this, be my guest.

In order to get rainbows, you need large amounts of liquid water on the earth, so that water can evaporate, form clouds, rain, and rainbows can appear. As you've quoted me in my sig, without those conditions, we wouldn't have any life on earth.

In any case, we've already proven from two sources that there were rainbows before the date of the flood, as given by inspired sources.

[_bcuzbcuz]

Does the supernatural exist?

It exists. It exists in books, in films, in TV programs, in churches and in people's imagination.

Can it be empirically evidenced and proven? No. Can experiments be conducted that are observable, repeatable and reviewed by qualified learned men? No. Could any one demonstrate and have it verified by James Randi? He has a million dollar reward for anyone who can do the above. I can't match that but would be willing to watch anyone willing to take the challenge.

Do I believe in the supernatural? Absolutely Not, but I'm an old pensioner. I'll let you know if I find out anything different when I get over to the other side.

[_subgenius]

Does the supernatural exist?

It exists. It exists in books, in films, in TV programs, in churches and in people's imagination.

Can it be empirically evidenced and proven? No. Can experiments be conducted that are observable, repeatable and reviewed by qualified learned men? No. Could any one demonstrate and have it verified by James Randi? He has a million dollar reward for anyone who can do the above. I can't match that but would be willing to watch anyone willing to take the challenge.

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.
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

Do I believe in the supernatural? Absolutely Not, but I'm an old pensioner. I'll let you know if I find out anything different when I get over to the other side.

I suspect the odds of you finding out anything, different or not, are long......however, one thing is more likely.....the other side indeed.

[_subgenius]

Rainbows in 8000 year old cave art? Anyone? Predates Sub's flood date by 1000 years.

8000 years old via Wikipedia is hardly convincing. Additionally, i have seen many rainbows and never mistaken them for or characterized them as a "snake", especially a snake that would create the universe.
The notion that a specific date can be applied to any of the mentioned events and artifacts is irrelevant to the OP's proposition (which is still unsupported) that rainbows are eternal and universal.

[_Melchett]

Does the supernatural exist?

It exists. It exists in books, in films, in TV programs, in churches and in people's imagination.

Can it be empirically evidenced and proven? No. Can experiments be conducted that are observable, repeatable and reviewed by qualified learned men? No. Could any one demonstrate and have it verified by James Randi? He has a million dollar reward for anyone who can do the above. I can't match that but would be willing to watch anyone willing to take the challenge.

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.
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

Do you actually understand what he said? Did you read it and take it in? bcuzbcuz said that it does exist, and that it is something that cannot be proved empirically.

Do I believe in the supernatural? Absolutely Not, but I'm an old pensioner. I'll let you know if I find out anything different when I get over to the other side.

I suspect the odds of you finding out anything, different or not, are long......however, one thing is more likely.....the other side indeed.

So, subgenius, you think that the odds of bcuzbcuz finding out anything about the 'other side' are long? It's not a sure and certain thing? The lack of strength of your faith in that astounds me.

[_subgenius]

Official doctrine is that which is published by the Church. That's the church's own standard. If you wish to disown the church over this, be my guest.

In order to get rainbows, you need large amounts of liquid water on the earth, so that water can evaporate, form clouds, rain, and rainbows can appear. As you've quoted me in my sig, without those conditions, we wouldn't have any life on earth.

In any case, we've already proven from two sources that there were rainbows before the date of the flood, as given by inspired sources.

You seem to have a misunderstanding, not only on this topic, but what constitutes church doctrine. For example Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church.
http://newsroom.LDS.org/article/approac ... n-doctrine

For the flood, Official church doctrine is as follows:
Noah was a prophet
Noah built an ark that allowed survival
The flood occurred (either global or local is irrelevant to a member being held in good standing)

We have read and heard countless church authorities subscribe to notions of the Biblical timeline that deviated from what one might simply glean from the scriptures. example: David McKay who stated "...the millions of years that it took to prepare the physical world..."

From the outset, we note that at least some of the acrimony over the interpretation of the Genesis days arises from language differences. Turning biblical Hebrew into English prose and poetry presents some enormous difficulties. Whereas biblical Hebrew has a vocabulary of under 3,100 words (not including proper nouns), English words number over 4,000,000. The disparity is even greater for nouns. Therefore, we should not be surprised that Hebrew nouns have multiple literal definitions. The English word day most often refers either to the daylight hours or to a period of 24 hours. As in "the day of the Romans," it is also used for a longer time period. English speakers and writers, however, have many words for an extended period--age, era, epoch, and eon, just to name a few. The Hebrew word yom similarly refers to daylight hours, 24 hours, and a long (but finite) time period. Unlike English, however, biblical Hebrew has no word other than yom to denote a long timespan. The word yom appears repeatedly in the Hebrew Scriptures with reference to a period longer than 12 or 24 hours. The Hebrew terms yom (singular) and yamin (plural) often refer to an extended time frame. Perhaps the most familiar passages are those referring to God's "day of wrath." Before English translations were available, animosity over the length of the Genesis days did not exist, at least not as far as anyone can tell from the extant theological literature. Prior to the Nicene Council, the early Church fathers wrote two thousand pages of commentary on the Genesis creation days, yet did not devote a word to disparaging each other's viewpoints on the creation time scale. All these early scholars accepted that yom could mean "a long time period." The majority explicitly taught that the Genesis creation days were extended time periods (something like a thousand years per yom). Not one Ante-Nicene Father explicitly endorsed the 24-hour interpretation. Ambrose, who came the closest to doing so, apparently vacillated on the issue. We certainly cannot charge the Church fathers with "scientific bias" in their interpretations. They wrote long before astronomical, geological, and paleontological evidences for the antiquity of the universe, the earth, and life became available. Nor had biological evolution yet been proposed. Lamarck, Darwin, and Huxley came along some 1,400 years later." (Ross H.N. and Archer G.L., "The Day-Age View," in Hagopian D.G., ed., The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation, Crux Press: Mission Viejo CA, 2001, pp. 125-126, as cited by Jones)

[_subgenius]

Do you actually understand what he said? Did you read it and take it in? bcuzbcuz said that it does exist, and that it is something that cannot be proved empirically.

yes, i read it and understood it...and what was obvious was that the word "exist" was being equated with that which is imagined, and so i posted a dictionary link for clarification of the term i used in my original question. Because to follow your reasoning here we can only conclude that bcuzbcuz has proven something "exists" that he does not "believe in", a statement which calls into question his ability to participate in such a discussion as this.

So, subgenius, you think that the odds of bcuzbcuz finding out anything about the 'other side' are long? It's not a sure and certain thing? The lack of strength of your faith in that astounds me.

so much astonishment in your life....what a blessing it must be for you

[_Melchett]

The flood occurred (either global or local is irrelevant to a member being held in good standing)

How can it be irrelevant? The Bible states that the flood was so immense that all life on Earth is destroyed.

[_subgenius]

The flood occurred (either global or local is irrelevant to a member being held in good standing)

How can it be irrelevant? The Bible states that the flood was so immense that all life on Earth is destroyed.

your failure to pay attention is not my burden