Let's Talk Rainbows

[_EAllusion]

I think you misread that post Tarski. All he is saying is, "Problem of induction, therefore anything is possible, therefore you can't say rainbows existed throughout Earth's recent past." He's saying the laws of physics could've been radically different 4000 years ago. If the subject were radiological dating, he'd be rhetorically asking you to prove that half-lifes were the same 4000 years ago as they are observed today. God could've created the universe a second ago with the appearance of age, right? It's a general skepticism in our ability to infer into the past that you should be replying to, not explaining the details of quantum physics.

[Guest]

... the first instants of the big band ...

Is that big band the council in heaven?

I know nothing about them.

Some of the first instants of the big soloist come to my mind...

http://wulffmorgenthaler.com/img/strip/ ... 111204.jpg Everybody can gaze to this picture on their own risk.



Edited to calm subgenius down.

[_subgenius]

... the first instants of the big band ...

Is that big band the council in heaven?

I know nothing about them.

Some of the first instants of the big soloist come to my mind...

moderator?
is posting images depicting masturbation considered rated "g" as the spirit of the celestial forum merits, and is noted in the posted rules?

[_ludwigm]

moderator?
is posting images depicting masturbation considered rated "g" as the spirit of the celestial forum merits, and is noted in the posted rules?

[ img ] * [ /img] was edited out. Everybody can gaze to that picture on their own risk.

[_Buffalo]

...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.

I hope for your sake that you're just trolling us. Otherwise I'd suspect you're posting from your assisted living apartments. There are several official sources just in this thread giving the flood between 2300 and 2400 BCE (the last one is a bookmark the church hands out to seminary students). We have also several sources proving the existence of rainbows through explicit mention of them before that time.

Scientifically we also know that where there is rain, there are rainbows. And you can't have most forms of life on earth without rain.

I'd suggest attaching a drool cup onto your face before you short out your keyboard.

[_bcuzbcuz]

However, on the topic of rainbows, there is no actual evidence that they are universal and eternal. So, one must assume that they either have always been or have not always been.
For my part, i choose to make the assumption that they have not always been, and to support that choice i reference the scriptures.
For others, they have clearly chose otherwise, yet they offer no support for proof that a rainbow is anything but, maybe, a few thousand years old. And they clearly offer no actual support for one to "assume" that rainbows are universal and eternal.
That being said, i have seen no mathematical deduction that illustrates that a rainbow could have formed from sunlight and water vapor 6 million years ago. Even assumptions about gravity and the speed of light are being shown to be a little less concise as once was "assumed".

So, when someone blathers on about how physics is "connected as a whole" then it only brings 2 thoughts to mind....the first being -duh, of course it is because it is founded on the same paradigm, on the same fundamental assumption (which is why it has only one name - physics) - which is like saying math is connected as a whole because of numbers. Secondly, i think why do we insist that what works now surely will work forever and surely has worked forever for all things? As, an architect i see the reasoning for such assumptions being made about structural frames, and even then you should ask any engineer how such assumptions are cushioned with an abundance of caution (most structures are considerably over-designed, as in over-designed for what the "math" tells us).

What? You're an architect? And you don't think physics can be trusted- that most buildings are over-designed?

Do you ever try to sell your prospective buyer that you've purposefully under-designed a building because you can save a lot of money by not accepting "math"? What is it exactly, that you architect? mud buildings?

OK maybe that's uncalled for. But I just wonder how you purport to have no trust in physical laws being the same for today, for yesterday, forever, just because no one on this board was around on earth a few weeks before Noah set out on his raft, to witness that rainbows existed prior to the flood.

I wasn't around 2500 years BCE but I have seen the pyramids. I've viewed the pyramids that date before Noah and the pyramids that date after Noah. I can tell you the technology (or architecture, if you so will) was identical. They required the same masses of labour to construct, a society of at least 25000 for 20 years devoted only to building (God knows what the rest of the people were doing?) There is NO BATH TUB RING around any of the pyramids or sphinx. Nothing to indicate in any way that they were buried under water.

True, I wasn't alive at the time of Noah, but the pyramid builders were. How come they didn't notice the flood?

[_subgenius]

I hope for your sake that you're just trolling us. Otherwise I'd suspect you're posting from your assisted living apartments.

nice

There are several official sources just in this thread giving the flood between 2300 and 2400 BCE (the last one is a bookmark the church hands out to seminary students).

we have already moved on with the assumption, for argument, that the flood event occurred circa 3,000 b.c. other than that you actually did post something claiming to be official, when it was not.

We have also several sources proving the existence of rainbows through explicit mention of them before that time.

actually you have a few sources that "claim" the existence of rainbows. However their dates of existence have yet to be verified. It is more likely that if a rainbow is shown to be of a date prior to circa 3000 b.c. then the date of the flood is what is in error, not the creation of rainbows.

Scientifically we also know that where there is rain, there are rainbows. And you can't have most forms of life on earth without rain.

correct. but you can not "prove" that a rainbow will always be, and, more importantly, always has been formed when rain and light were present.

I'd suggest attaching a drool cup onto your face before you short out your keyboard.

given that your advice is from experience, i will heed it.

[_Buffalo]

we have already moved on with the assumption, for argument, that the flood event occurred circa 3,000 b.c. other than that you actually did post something claiming to be official, when it was not.

Not 3000 BCE. 2400-2300 BCE. That's the official church timeline.

This was my source:

http://LDS.org/gospellibrary/materials/ ... ine_000.pd

You lose.

actually you have a few sources that "claim" the existence of rainbows. However their dates of existence have yet to be verified. It is more likely that if a rainbow is shown to be of a date prior to circa 3000 b.c. then the date of the flood is what is in error, not the creation of rainbows.

2300 BCE, not 3000. The dates have been verified on the rainbow references. You lose.

correct. but you can not "prove" that a rainbow will always be, and, more importantly, always has been formed when rain and light were present.

It's already been proved. You lost.

[_subgenius]

What? You're an architect? And you don't think physics can be trusted- that most buildings are over-designed?

Do you ever try to sell your prospective buyer that you've purposefully under-designed a building because you can save a lot of money by not accepting "math"? What is it exactly, that you architect? mud buildings?

obviously you do not understand, my fault.
for example
when one designs a structural member on has to consider certain "loads"...both live and dead. Live loads are comprised of people, furniture, snow, forklifts etc...Dead loads are carpet, roof tile, plywood, etc...
As a designer you calculate the dead loads by adding up the values. Then you calculate live loads by using empirical data. Then you use various formulas to calculate various things that ultimately describe what the structural member "size" should be.
However, the law and good practice require that the loads described above be artificially increased prior to being implemented into the formulas mentioned. Then the formulas themselves will artificially increase the "loads" so that ultimately you have designed a structural member that exceeds its intended and expected use.
This is structural design 101, and applies to buildings, bridges, etc..
The same is true for calculating air usage, heating and cooling, and daylight requirements...though these are not as stringent because they do not have such an intimate relationship with life safety....more like life quality.
In a nutshell being on the observation deck of the empire state building makes you appreciate the beauty of engineering but your safety relies on the understanding that engineering is not as predictive as you would imagine.

OK maybe that's uncalled for. But I just wonder how you purport to have no trust in physical laws being the same for today, for yesterday, forever, just because no one on this board was around on earth a few weeks before Noah set out on his raft, to witness that rainbows existed prior to the flood.

i have absolute trust in physical laws and in engineering sciences...but i have more trust in the fact that we do not have dominion over them.

...There is NO BATH TUB RING around any of the pyramids or sphinx. Nothing to indicate in any way that they were buried under water.

lack of evidence does not exclude existence....correct?
;)

True, I wasn't alive at the time of Noah, but the pyramid builders were. How come they didn't notice the flood?

who says they did not?

[_Buffalo]

lack of evidence does not exclude existence....correct?
;)

Oh, there is overwhelming positive evidence against a global flood. There is zero possibility that any global flood happened in the course of human civilization.