Let's Talk Rainbows

[_subgenius]

...there has always been enough liquid water in the atmosphere to form rainbows somewhere on the Earth.

you claim it, so prove it.
and while you are at it prove that "liquid water" in the atmosphere has always created rainbows...please, provide empirical and reproducible evidence that a rainbow occurred 75,000 years ago.

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

Please, provide physical evidence that a rainbow existed 75,000 years ago.
And disregard providing evidence that water vapor and sunlight existed, correlation does not mean causation. I mean i can likely prove that flour, water, eggs, and sugar all existed thousands of years ago, but that does not mean i can prove that there was a cream-puff.

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

i am not arguing the physics of rainbows, again we all agree on how they work, not on how long they have worked. This is that fundamental nuance i spoke of earlier, where i understand how science "does" describe nature, and others claim that science "has to" describe nature.
Let us note one thing...rainbows are not always present...in other words, there have been many rainstorms where a rainbow was not observed, so arguably it did not occur. That assumption is the converse to the assumption you are making, you are assuming that they always have and will occur when the elements provide a "probable predictability"....a predictability that you would extrapolate not just across the paradigm of actual observation but across time and all eternity.

[_subgenius]

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?

and here comes the spouting of the properly brainwashed:
Ever heard of Charles Lyell? circa 1830
"The geologic record does seem to require catastrophes: rocks are fractured and contorted; whole faunas are wiped out. To circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination upon the evidence. The geologic record, he argued, is extremely imperfect and we must interpolate into it what we can reasonably infer but cannot see. The catastrophists were the hard-nosed empiricists of their day, not the blinded theological apologists.”

this forum is polluted with the former with far less of the latter.

I have been trying to show how I think geology got into the hands of the theoreticians who were conditioned by the social and political history of their day more than by observation in the field…In other words, we have allowed ourselves to be brain-washed into avoiding any interpretation of the past that involves extreme and what might be termed “catastrophic” processes
Ager, D. V., The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record,
The Macmillan Press Ltd, London, pp. 46-47, 1981.

ever heard of uniformitarian vs gradualism?
or perhaps thine belly is so full of milk that it is not quite ready for meat?

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?

yipee, you have google.
ever heard of how imprecise those methods are? have anything that is objectively know to be 1 million years old that can be used to verify such findings? Have any idea what the occurrence of something like nuclear bomb testing has on such data for the future "scientists" which rely upon the "truth" of such methods.

Creation science (another oxymoron) is not responsible for a single piece of the modern technology that you encounter and depend upon every day.

wow, you are deeply entrenched.
You should watch James Burke's show "Connections", the vacuum from which you worship science simply does not exist.

[_subgenius]

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.

and yet here you are.

[_Buffalo]

The brethren make numerous references to it (a global flood). They teach it as a literal event. I have also been taught numerous times that it served to "baptize" the Earth. And that the Earth will later be baptized with fire. Sub, if the Brethren teach it was global and you teach it was local...... would that make you an apostate?

no it does make me an apostate, because there is absolutely no official church doctrine on the topic of global vs local flood. You can cite whomever you want but you will still fall short of actual doctrine from the church. Church leaders will likely always reference the flood as "global" in the context of a rather straightforward reading of the scriptures, but that is still NOT the doctrine from the church. I have already covered that position quite well, and i suggest you confirm via LDS.org and search for the term "global flood".
Again the inability for anyone to even recognize the cosmological view of that time period and the simple sources that contradict whatever "witch hunt" mentality permeates the bitter mind of the armchair intellectual bent on destroying that which has become apparently something they know little about.

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/wp-con ... -27-45.pdf

Furthermore, you are disingenuous when you say that they "teach" the flood is global, when the flood is mentioned in that context they are always teaching about something altogether different.
The myopic argument being tossed around by the milk-eaters around here is amusing.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=232

So, let's get this straight - recent articles in the Ensign aren't doctrinal, but articles from the MI are?

LOL

[_Buffalo]

I know i have already posted that the authorities are likely to take the stance of a more straightforward reading of the scriptures as they apply to the notion of a "global" flood, even with that stance being towards a larger lesson from the story.
Nevertheless, i stand by my position that a member can still be found in good standing if they subscribe to a less literal view of the expanse of the flood, or even if they consider that the notion of "global" meant something vastly different then than it does now.
The links i have provided are evidence that my position is more accurate within the church than the balderdash being posted to the contrary.

and yet i am still waiting for that evidence which proves that the laws of refraction which bring about rainbows have always been present on this earth...i mean i would even be content if someone could prove them from just the second day of creation onward.

Do you have any evidence that the laws of refraction have changed?

Anyway, nice to see you slowly backing away. :)

[_DrW]

SG,

From 1978 to 2002, I was a senior scientist and project manager at one of the DOE National Laboratories. On the way to my lab each morning, I passed by a large cave of lead bricks in a pre-WWII steel and lead shielded room in which was (and probably still is) installed the best low level radiometric counting equipment in existence.

My colleagues who ran this equipment were able to provide more detailed information about radionuclide deposition after the Chernobyl accident than the Russians had themselves. They did it, to no small degree, by counting the soles of shoes that they had collected from people who were willing to document their movements on the ground around the area of Chernobyl, Kiev, and elsewhere in Europe, and send their shoes to our lab. These data, confirmed by other assets in the area, were provided as a much appreciated gift to our Russian and Ukrainian colleagues in Kiev and Knieperpetrovsk.

Like you, I do have access to Google. What I also have is a post doc at MIT and more than 40 years of experience as a scientist and engineer working for many years directly with equipment that measures isotopic ratios of both stable and radioisotopes in a variety of substrates, including radiopharmaceuticals.

Colleagues in my lab were involved in dating a number of significant geological events, including the deposition of iridium around the globe from the asteroid strike 65 million years ago that lead to the extinction of the large dinosaurs. Researchers from our lab joined expeditions that recovered meteorites from the pristine environments of Antarctica for compositional and isotopic analyses. These data helped confirm the age of the Earth and the solar system (both of which turn out to be a lot older than indicated in Genesis, by the way.)

Your claim that radioisotopic dating is unreliable is nonsense. While there are some exceptions, including some exposed strata in the Grand Canyon that creation "scientists" love to chortle about, these are exceptions, not the rule. The rule is that isotopic and radiometric dating are in very good agreement with results from other dating methods that I mentioned. And these methods produce remarkably consistent dates for a number of major geological events, including the formation of the Earth and the moon.

So rather than address your misunderstanding and silly, out of context, quoting of scientific findings that you picked up from some creations science website, I will simply ask you to consider that the proof is in the outcome.

Mainstream science is the source of modern technology - all of it. If not for mainstream science, you would probably be working on a small horse-powered farm right now wondering if you had enough food put away to survive the winter, and if you have more than three children, you probably would have lost one of them to a disease that is now preventable.

“Creation science”, which tries to reconcile mainstream science with the myths and superstitions of the Old Testament and religion in general, does not, has not, and cannot contribute here. Creation science serves only to deny, deflect, and delay real science.

And when you come onto forums like this spouting creation science nonsense, you loose all credibility with rational people.

Think about it.

And if you do not agree, then please provide a single example of any technological or material benefit that has come to humankind by way of the creation science that you so cluelessly defend.

[_SteelHead]

So, let's get this straight - recent articles in the Ensign aren't doctrinal, but articles from the MI are?

LOL

For Sub the apologists are more authoritative than the apostles.

[_Buffalo]

and while you are at it prove that "liquid water" in the atmosphere has always created rainbows...please, provide empirical and reproducible evidence that a rainbow occurred 75,000 years ago.

How long are you going to keep moving the goal posts? We've already proved that there were rainbows before the flood.

[_Buffalo]

Ever heard of Charles Lyell? circa 1830

When you have to appeal to 200 year old research, you've already lost the argument.

[_DrW]

Ever heard of Charles Lyell? circa 1830

When you have to appeal to 200 year old research, you've already lost the argument.

Odds are that sub only found out about Charles Lyell while he was scrambling around the creation science websites looking for some kind of response to a questions on something about which he had no clue.

He clearly did not have the time to read or to understand that Lyell was, in fact, the father of geological stratigraphy and that another Charles (Charles Darwin) was profoundly influenced by Lyell's work.

As with the work of Darwin and many other 19th century scientists, Lyell's methods have been refined, tested and then refined again. This should in no way detract from his original insights or the importance of his contribution to science.

The quote that sub found, which he thought would be useful in defending his position, does not reflect the modern practice of the branch of science of which Charles Lyell is the father. Nor does it reflect the modern understanding of geological strata in terms of sedimentation rates and their value in geological dating, especially when combined with magneto stratigraphy and isotopic ratio analysis.

Not to worry though, sub will soon learn, if he has not already, that the creation scientists' stock in trade is fabricating pseudoscientific theories from the fragments of outlier or outdated data that fall to the floor from the workbench of mainstream science.