Let's Talk Rainbows

[_subgenius]

The Church teaches that the Global flood literally happened and di so circa 2-3,000 bc.

Do you disagree with the official Church teaching on this?

i disagree with what you claim the church teaches.

[_Drifting]

The Church teaches that the Global flood literally happened and di so circa 2-3,000 bc.

Do you disagree with the official Church teaching on this?

i disagree with what you claim the church teaches.

Tell me which bit you disagree that the Church teaches:

1. The Flood literally happened

(Jeffrey R Holland)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.

2. It happened circ 2-3,000 bc.

From Buffalo's post earlier

This is the official timeline from the Church:



http://LDS.org/gospellibrary/materials/ ... ne_000.pdf[/quote]

[_Tarski]

Actually the OP assumes that position.

Where? (No it doesn't!)

but thanks to your admission here, it is possible that God brought them into existence at a certain point in time. Maybe not probable, but possible.

Rain and clouds aren't eternal either as far as we can tell. So what?

The OP doesn't assume anything about the "eternal". It simply points out the obvious fact that there must have been rainbows at the times in question as a matter of basic physics.

Doubting that there were rainbows while admitting there was rain and clouds etc. is just ridiculous and so was the rest of your reply to me.
I can see that I am wasting my time with you. You clearly don't have a scientific sensibility and rather prefer magical thinking. Either that or your ego is keeping from admitting the obvious.

[_subgenius]

2. It happened circ 2-3,000 bc.

From Buffalo's post earlier

This is the official timeline from the Church:

actually it is not, it is from a commercial website
http://lds-timeline.com/timeline_faq.html
...you should research your citations and attempt to use more legitimate sources.
From the "source" you cite here they state the following:
The LDS World History Timeline is based on the most widely accepted dates in each field of study we researched. The Bible dates are based on Usher's Table.
They are retired farmers selling stuff on the internet...from that other church headquarters that must be based in Duck, WV.
like most of Buffalo's posts, that one has already, quite easily, been disassembled.
The "teaching" of the church with regards to the timeline is not as you have proposed.
Though, you, like many insist that if the church publishes it then it must be what it teaches or what is doctrine is as erroneous as most of your reasoning.

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency... and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles... counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four ‘standard works' of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith."

-Approaching Mormon Doctrine, May 2007 (Official Church Statement)
(emphasis mine)

What we see consistently proclaimed in church publications is that the timeline for this event is likely unknown, likely irrelevant, and likely un-influential on the actual story.

You should walk away now before Buffalo's embarrassment becomes your own.

[_Drifting]

2. It happened circ 2-3,000 bc.

From Buffalo's post earlier

This is the official timeline from the Church:

actually it is not, it is from a commercial website
http://lds-timeline.com/timeline_faq.html
...you should research your citations and attempt to use more legitimate sources.
From the "source" you cite here they state the following:
The LDS World History Timeline is based on the most widely accepted dates in each field of study we researched. The Bible dates are based on Usher's Table.
They are retired farmers selling stuff on the internet...from that other church headquarters that must be based in Duck, WV.
like most of Buffalo's posts, that one has already, quite easily, been disassembled.
The "teaching" of the church with regards to the timeline is not as you have proposed.
Though, you, like many insist that if the church publishes it then it must be what it teaches or what is doctrine is as erroneous as most of your reasoning.

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency... and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles... counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four ‘standard works' of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith."

-Approaching Mormon Doctrine, May 2007 (Official Church Statement)
(emphasis mine)

What we see consistently proclaimed in church publications is that the timeline for this event is likely unknown, likely irrelevant, and likely un-influential on the actual story.

You should walk away now before Buffalo's embarrassment becomes your own.

Follow this link to the Seminary support website.

https://si.LDS.org/bc/seminary/content/ ... rk_eng.pdf

And then admit you are flat out wrong...
Because this clearly and unequivocally shows, from an official Church source, that the Church does indeed actively and consistently teach that the flood literally took place between 2,300 and 2,400 bc. Fact.

[_subgenius]

Where? (No it doesn't!)

right here - I find it hard to believe that the physical properties of light dispersion were voided for the 1500+ years between Adam and Noah
if i am incorrect that this statement does not imply a universal and/or eternal aspect for "light dispersion" then what does it state? Does this OP concede that the physical properties of light dispersion are inconsistent?

Rain and clouds aren't eternal either as far as we can tell. So what?

what about the physical laws that create them? are they eternal and universal?

Either that or your ego is keeping from admitting the obvious.

exactly what is "obvious" ?
Is it "obvious" that a rainbow must have been created at any point that light and water mist were present together before the flood? exactly why is that obvious? because your magic crystals told you so? because the "math" surely proves it? because you have a burning in your bosom?

[_subgenius]

...actively and consistently....

one source doth not "actively and consistently" make.
Nor does the source specifically mention the flood. Please, cite official sources that consistently proclaim the flood's date...not Noah, not Adam, but where the church specifically proclaims the date of the flood.

That being said, i actually have no issue with the flood having occurred circa 3,000 b.c..
For the sake of your already buffalo-embarrassed-argument let us just assume that it did.
now what? now you want to have the carbon-dating argument? you want to establish vis-a-vis a seance that you have confirmed evidence of a rainbow existing at some time that you actually cannot verfiy that time?
I contend that rainbows, of the kind mentioned in the flood story-not the Brazilian rainbow Book of Abraham snake, were non-existent to mankind at anytime prior.
Your serve laughing boy.

[_Drifting]

...actively and consistently....

one source doth not "actively and consistently" make.
Nor does the source specifically mention the flood. Please, cite official sources that consistently proclaim the flood's date...not Noah, not Adam, but where the church specifically proclaims the date of the flood.

That being said, i actually have no issue with the flood having occurred circa 3,000 b.c..
For the sake of your already buffalo-embarrassed-argument let us just assume that it did.
now what? now you want to have the carbon-dating argument? you want to establish vis-à-vis a seance that you have confirmed evidence of a rainbow existing at some time that you actually cannot verfiy that time?
I contend that rainbows, of the kind mentioned in the flood story-not the Brazilian rainbow Book of Abraham snake, were non-existent to mankind at anytime prior.
Your serve laughing boy.

It is the book mark that accompanies the seminary course on the old testament - which shows the full chronology for the od testament including the flood.

Actively - taught to seminary students
Consistently - every student that does the old testament course gets shown this chronology

So. Now that we have confirmed to your satisfaction that the Church teaches the flood was a literal event that happened between 2,300 and 2,400 bc you want to quickly move on. I don't blame you.

So what you are now proposing is that rainbows didn't exist in 2,500 bc but did 100 years later...okay...prove it.

[_Drifting]

subgenius,

Do you agree with the following statements:

1. Life on earth is only sustainable where fresh water exists.
2. Precipitation is a major component of the water cycle, and is responsible for depositing the fresh water on the planet.
3. Life on earth existed for many thousands of years prior to the flood.

[_Tarski]

right here - I find it hard to believe that the physical properties of light dispersion were voided for the 1500+ years between Adam and Noah
if i am incorrect that this statement does not imply a universal and/or eternal aspect for "light dispersion" then what does it state?

I think you have one to many negatives in that sentence.
In any case, you are incorrect if you think the OP implies something eternal or universal. We aren't even sure if the universe itself is eternal. In fact, in the FRW cosmologies, the universe has a finite past.

It assumes (correctly) that the laws of optical refraction hold under obvious simple conditions that include that the atmosphere is transparent, that there is water and precipitation in the form of rain and so on. All of these have held for most of the last several million years at least.
It is probably true that refraction of radiation of some kind has been a fact since the first instants of the big band, but the OP doesn't imply that or need it.

Consider this. We may also conclude that gravity was in operation and that water would have been flowing down hill. But I stop short of saying that water flowing down hill is an eternal fact since there was a time when there was no liquid water in our universe.

Does this OP concede that the physical properties of light dispersion are inconsistent?

Inconsistent? As in "self contradictory"? No.
If you meant to ask if the laws of refraction have been changing then the answer would be depend on what you take to be those laws. How low a level are you operating at. The most basic quantum field theoretic laws that imply that refraction and dispersion will happen, whenever conditions were as they were at the time in question, have not been changing with time. More precisely, there is no evidence that such basic laws have been changing and there is no good motivation for thinking that maybe they did change.
But for many many reasons we know those laws were in play, we know it was often raining, and we know that light behaved in the same way as it does now.

really, man--what more do you want? We know there were rainbows as well as we know there was wind and rain. If not, then innumerable other perfectly good scientific explanations for all sorts of other things would break down.

what about the physical laws that create them? are they eternal and universal?

We have every reason to be sure that the bottom level quantum laws have been in play since the big bang and that they hold throughout universe. Now I don't know if you want to call that eternal or not. You seem to be hung up with Mormon speak.

But it doesn't matter. The only claim is that we know enough to be sure that the usual optical and atmospheric laws were operating on earth for the last several million years. Who needs eternal??

Is it "obvious" that a rainbow must have been created at any point that light and water mist were present together before the flood?

It is obvious to anyone who has gone through the optical physics of how rainbows are produced. That is, should there be anyone in the right location to be looking. After all, strictly speaking, a rainbow is actually is at least partially an observer dependent visual effect.

It is obvious for the same reason that it is obvious that even a million years ago a rock falling into an unfrozen lake would have produced small circular waves. Do you suppose this is also subject to debate?