Let's Talk Rainbows

[_subgenius]

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.

dead link, and besides, already posted the link for the image you used...it also matches the other posters image.

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

verified? by who? or is this one of those times where it is just because "you say so"?

It's already been proved. You lost.

i see, it is one of those times where you are just going to will it to be true by saying it over and over.
when in fact it has yet to be proved.
Please, take pity on poor little me, and show me again where the PROOF is that a rainbow has always been formed when water vapor and light are present....i am assuming of course that your head would be 42 degrees below the horizon/away form the shadow of your head (anti-solar point)....we can forgo the secondary bow at 51 degrees.

[_subgenius]

There is zero possibility...

Please, prove this, or concede that it is an erroneous claim.
(see also Drifting's signature line)

[_Buffalo]

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.

dead link, and besides, already posted the link for the image you used...it also matches the other posters image.
.

The link works, I incompletely C&Pd it, leaving off the final "f" in pdf.

http://LDS.org/gospellibrary/materials/ ... ne_000.pdf


You lose. :)

[_Buffalo]

verified? by who? or is this one of those times where it is just because "you say so"?

Verified by scientifically rigorous dating techniques of course. You lose. :)

i see, it is one of those times where you are just going to will it to be true by saying it over and over.
when in fact it has yet to be proved.
Please, take pity on poor little me, and show me again where the PROOF is that a rainbow has always been formed when water vapor and light are present....i am assuming of course that your head would be 42 degrees below the horizon/away form the shadow of your head (anti-solar point)....we can forgo the secondary bow at 51 degrees.

Tarski already owned your ass on this. I told you you were in over your head. If only you had listened. :)

[_Buffalo]

There is zero possibility...

Please, prove this, or concede that it is an erroneous claim.
(see also Drifting's signature line)

It's quite simple. The simple fact is, all the civilizations that existed in the seconds before the flood, kept on existing, uninterrupted, the day after.

You lose. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Eg ... 2181_BC.29

[_Tarski]

Please, take pity on poor little me, and show me again where the PROOF is that a rainbow has always been formed when water vapor and light are present.

Please show me PROOF that water does not freeze at 56 degrees F in my kitchen.

Look any time someone demands absolute proof of scientific facts (as indicated by you ridiculous use of upper case) we know for sure that the person in question has though little about the nature of scientific knowledge.

Nothing at all is PROVED in empirical science in the sense you seem to demand.

As EA points out, you can't even prove that the universe wasn't created by God 10 minutes ago complete with false memories and staged historical documents and phoney signs of erosion and so forth. God could have created every particle in place just as it was ten minutes ago.

We can can often deduce things from within a given theoretical structure (as with the rainbow issue and the specular properties of gold) but ultimately science must live with the problem of induction. Good luck if you want to ground induction in something more fundamental to rationality. But, you have to stop somewhere.
But if you want to live in an anything goes magical world were scientific knowledge is thought impossible for lack of final deductive proofs, then be my guest.
One pretty much has to do that anyway to practice your kind of religion.

[_subgenius]

The link works, I incompletely C&Pd it, leaving off the final "f" in pdf.

http://LDS.org/gospellibrary/materials/ ... ne_000.pdf


You lose. :)

nice try, but once again we see more evidence of you being you.
reference your original post, not your revision once you were exposed.
let us look, shall we?
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=21441&start=42

4990 BCE would be nearly a millennium before the earth even existed, SubG. This is the official timeline from the Church:

(emphasis mine)
image is from lds-timeline.com, and is clearly the subject of "This is".
game over...move on

[_subgenius]

Verified by scientifically rigorous dating techniques of course. You lose. :)

nice dodge, but since you have not provided proof for the claims i will take that as your concession.
provide the "proof" or let the bitter taste of defeat rest eternally on the tip of your tongue
:)
thank you

Tarski already owned your ass on this. I told you you were in over your head. If only you had listened. :)

its almost like you have not been reading anything. But hey if you say it enough maybe even you will believe you are correct. All tarski did was bore me with high school physics, of which had little to do with the actual argument....as was illuminated by another poster...reference "induction", it can be your new word for the day.

win

[_Buffalo]

The link works, I incompletely C&Pd it, leaving off the final "f" in pdf.

http://LDS.org/gospellibrary/materials/ ... ne_000.pdf


You lose. :)

nice try, but once again we see more evidence of you being you.
reference your original post, not your revision once you were exposed.
let us look, shall we?
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=21441&start=42

4990 BCE would be nearly a millennium before the earth even existed, SubG. This is the official timeline from the Church:

(emphasis mine)
image is from lds-timeline.com, and is clearly the subject of "This is".
game over...move on

That's merely the host. The origin is the church itself. Add that to the fact that I already posted another identical timeline hosted on LDS.org and your point is less than moot.

You lose. :)

[_Buffalo]

its almost like you have not been reading anything. But hey if you say it enough maybe even you will believe you are correct. All tarski did was bore me with high school physics, of which had little to do with the actual argument....as was illuminated by another poster...reference "induction", it can be your new word for the day.

win

I'm not surprised you didn't understand Tarski's argument, Corky. He's coming at the issue as a PhD and expert in the subject. You, on the other hand, spend your evenings in the activity room with finger paints.