Nothing died in mortality prior to 4,000 bc.

[_DrW]

Or how about Baron Münchhausen?

He were a good choice for patron saint of apologists.



...he pulled himself and the horse on which he was sitting out of a swamp by his own hair...

Then, of course, there is Munchausen syndrome, wherein the patient acts as if they have some type of physical or mental disorder in order to gain attention or sympathy.

If I were being snarky, I could suggest that one consider the often discussed perception of hatred and persecution or bigtory against Mormons, as seen over on the MADBoard, as an institutionalized form of Munchausens.

(Could also be that it is just good old fashioned paranoia).
__________

(Munchausen syndrome and Munchausen by proxy syndrome are different disorders)

[_subgenius]

the empirical type..though it would be awesome to see a photograph of one...or a painting.

I am pretty sure I provided a link a few weeks back to an 8000 year old painting of a rainbow created by Australian aborigines.

Yep I did.

what you did was provide an unverified image....and apparently the laws of refraction have changed, your rainbow has only 2 colors (red and orange)...pause for revised response from you about limitations of paint available from aboriginal sherwin-williams store.
(even Mount Grenfell rock art has various colors)
The date of 8,000 yo? unverified and likely an incorrect "estimate".
and like i said before....now we debate the dating of the cave art?
rainbow and snake?
most likely it came form the notion of a real snake
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian ... ow_Serpent

which having been a "creature" was likely in existence before rainbows were created...which is clear from the mythology surrounding the snake. The snake came first and then it was "seen" to travel through water and rain (and deep water, rivers, and oil).
I hardly consider it reasonable to think any man, primitive or modern, would confuse a rainbow with a snake, likely would impose the latter onto the former...not the other way around (as the myth confirms)....thus snake first...rainbow second.
That being said, you should actually study the myth before you make claims about it after a momentary google search....but, hey, believe what you want...right?

[_subgenius]

....Should I consider the story about the goose that laid the golden egg to be archological evidence for geese laying golden eggs in the past? There is no conflicting evidence that geese laid golden eggs in the past.

i have never claimed that the fable should be taken as literal...but it does illustrate a cultural history for the concept and consequence unprofitable action motivated by greed...it does provide an anthropological value with respect to that. Think "rainbow snake".

There is also no evidence that god exists so why should we assume he created rainbows?

Because we have at least one source that supports that assumption...and of course absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.

Ok, so what is the first empirical evidence that you can produce that rainbows existed in the past?

i am not making the claim that they did exist in the past....i have admitted that i "assume" they did, but i assume a lot of things about the way things "were".

Can I safely assume that rainbows did not exist prior to the oldest "empirical" evidence you can produce and that the laws of nature were somehow different?

yes, it is "safe" to assume that.
but more importantly, why would you assume that the laws were not different then?
do you simply not believe in God and therefore there could not have been a "creation" of rainbows?
or do you believe that universe behaves in such a manner that a rainbow would have always been present given the right circumstance? That phenomenon and supernatural occurrences are wholly impossible?

[_subgenius]

OK, now you've done it. You've just tipped the scales of reason into the realm of fantasy, citing scripture as written proof: i.e. "written documents from the past are valid forms of evidence".
Yes, they are; but evidence of what?

i did not say in particular, but with reagrds to the subject at hand they are one source for the notion that God created rainbows.
but i am sure you will follow with an assumption as to what i mean...yep here it comes

--->insert anti-brevity here<---

Play fair.

i agree, so stop putting words into my mouth.

i find it incredibly ironic that those who do not believe in the scriptures "know" exactly what the scriptures mean.
(ironic? or hypocritical?...not sure)

It is perfectly reasonable to interpret the "talking donkey" as a miracle. "opening the mouth", in context, is the conferring of speech and reasoning, which for this story makes sense. The story being told is plain history, so it is unlikely that this aspect was a "vision", especially since it was not described as a vision. ..Calvin wrote of this as follows:
"It was a miracle, wrought to humble his proud heart, which had to be first subjected in the school of an ass before he was brought to attend to the voice of God speaking by the angel"
If one believes that God gave man the power to speak, then surely he must believe that God can give any the power to speak, as He pleases. God does not allow weakest to be abused, He always allows them to speak in their own defence, or He will some way or another speak for them.
Your own prejudice makes claims about this story that you can not support with anything more than empty cries and insult.

See also 2Peter2:16

p.s. perhaps your fascination with donkeys could be embellished with Ezekiel 23:20

[_Buffalo]

OK, now you've done it. You've just tipped the scales of reason into the realm of fantasy, citing scripture as written proof: i.e. "written documents from the past are valid forms of evidence".
Yes, they are; but evidence of what?

i did not say in particular, but with reagrds to the subject at hand they are one source for the notion that God created rainbows.
but i am sure you will follow with an assumption as to what i mean...yep here it comes

--->insert anti-brevity here<---

Play fair.

i agree, so stop putting words into my mouth.

i find it incredibly ironic that those who do not believe in the scriptures "know" exactly what the scriptures mean.
(ironic? or hypocritical?...not sure)

It is perfectly reasonable to interpret the "talking donkey" as a miracle. "opening the mouth", in context, is the conferring of speech and reasoning, which for this story makes sense. The story being told is plain history, so it is unlikely that this aspect was a "vision", especially since it was not described as a vision. ..Calvin wrote of this as follows:
"It was a miracle, wrought to humble his proud heart, which had to be first subjected in the school of an ass before he was brought to attend to the voice of God speaking by the angel"
If one believes that God gave man the power to speak, then surely he must believe that God can give any the power to speak, as He pleases. God does not allow weakest to be abused, He always allows them to speak in their own defence, or He will some way or another speak for them.
Your own prejudice makes claims about this story that you can not support with anything more than empty cries and insult.

See also 2Peter2:16

p.s. perhaps your fascination with donkeys could be embellished with Ezekiel 23:20

The talking donkey is silly, but unfalsifiable, technically. However, the flood has already been disproved beyond shadow of a doubt.

[_schreech]

i have never claimed that the fable should be taken as literal...

The flood fable? If so, then we agree.

but it does illustrate a cultural history for the concept and consequence unprofitable action motivated by greed...it does provide an anthropological value with respect to that. Think "rainbow snake".

So you really didn't mean "information in written documents from the past are valid forms of evidence" when you typed it. "anthropological value" =/= "valid forms of evidence".

Because we have at least one source that supports that assumption...and of course absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.

That's a neat little couplet, but meaningless here. I can provide "empirical evidence" that supports the existence of UFO's (including pictures), Bigfoot (including pictures), pink flying unicorns (including drawings and stories), Cthulhu (including "information in written documents from the past" and drawings) but my guess is that you don't believe in any of these things because you choose not to. Absence of evidence just means there is an absence of evidence - What you choose to believe in based on the lack of evidence is meaningless.

i am not making the claim that they did exist in the past....i have admitted that i "assume" they did, but i assume a lot of things about the way things "were".

So you only assume rainbows existed in the past between available "empirical evidence" and the mythical flood but, prior the mythical flood, you don't "assume" they existed?

yes, it is "safe" to assume that.
but more importantly, why would you assume that the laws were not different then?

This is just a dumb question. Why would you not assume that xenu, the galactic dictator, brought all his people to earth and killed them using hydrogen bombs? That story comes straight out of scripture and "information in written documents from the past" so if you don't assume that this happened (like the creation of rainbows by elohim) then you are not being consistent.

do you simply not believe in God and therefore there could not have been a "creation" of rainbows?

Irrelevant.

or do you believe that universe behaves in such a manner that a rainbow would have always been present given the right circumstance? That phenomenon and supernatural occurrences are wholly impossible?

Yes and Yes.

[_subgenius]

The flood fable? If so, then we agree.

obviously you are as attentive as Drift....goose....golden egg

So you really didn't mean "information in written documents from the past are valid forms of evidence" when you typed it. "anthropological value" =/= "valid forms of evidence".

no, i meant both

That's a neat little couplet, but meaningless here. I can provide "empirical evidence" that supports the existence of UFO's (including pictures), Bigfoot (including pictures), pink flying unicorns (including drawings and stories), Cthulhu (including "information in written documents from the past" and drawings)

stay on topic. we are not talking about bigfoot or UFOs or spiderman.

but my guess is that you don't believe in any of these things because you choose not to.

at least you are honest about guessing, just not honest about how often you actually do guess.

Absence of evidence just means there is an absence of evidence - What you choose to believe in based on the lack of evidence is meaningless.

"duh" for the first part and "huh?" for the last part.
Your notion of evidence is very cursory and narrow and likely not in tune with the rest of the free world or mature minds.

So you only assume rainbows existed in the past between available "empirical evidence" and the mythical flood but, prior the mythical flood, you don't "assume" they existed?

i have stated that i do not assume they existed before God created them...which i have said more than once now...am i typing too fast?

This is just a dumb question.

given

Why would you not assume that xenu, the galactic dictator, brought all his people to earth and killed them using hydrogen bombs? That story comes straight out of scripture and "information in written documents from the past" so if you don't assume that this happened (like the creation of rainbows by elohim) then you are not being consistent.

first, Xenu does not come from scripture. And though it comes from past writings it is not discernible as valid or true.
second, being consistent is a requirement for what?

Irrelevant.

completely relevant, belief in God is completely relevant in a discussion about believing in God.

Yes and Yes.

you have no evidence or reason for the former affirmation, yet you criticize those who do the same...not very consistent in a manner of speaking, and i understand that being consistent may be important to you.
As for the latter, now you concede that my position is plausible on the basis that it can seemingly be explained by a supernatural force (God) interfering with the conception of natural laws (a phenomenon)

Thanks for believing in rainbows

[_just me]

am i typing too fast?

That might be the problem. Going slower might help you form proper sentences complete with capitalization. ;)

[_bcspace]

Genesis 3: The Fall
Old Testament Student Manual Genesis-2 Samuel
...of the Lord creating her from Adam’s rib being merely figurative. (Moses 3:20–...

This is from searching 'rib' on LDS.org but it won't let me go to the page.
Bcspace pasted the full quote on another thread.
It's official - Story of Eve being made from Adam's rib is not literal.

I expect to see you in sacrament meeting now and that you'll stay for the whole block.

[_schreech]

no, i meant both

So then you agree that the story about the goose is a "valid form of evidence" for the existence of geese that lay golden eggs - got it, thanks for clearing that up.

stay on topic. we are not talking about bigfoot or UFOs or spiderman.

Um, really weak attempt at dodging the fact that you believe in one set of unsubstantiated myths over another, we are talking about belief in things for which we can find "empirical evidence"...Please try to keep up.

at least you are honest about guessing, just not honest about how often you actually do guess.

Was that supposed to make sense?

"duh" for the first part and "huh?" for the last part.
Your notion of evidence is very cursory and narrow and likely not in tune with the rest of the free world or mature minds.

Lol, you realize that most of the "free world" and "mature minds" don't believe that elohim created rainbows right after a global flood right? Again, you still haven't explained why you choose to believe the Bible as evidence but reject other forms of "empirical evidence"

i have stated that i do not assume they existed before God created them...which i have said more than once now...am i typing too fast?

So you believe in hebrew myths, in the absence of any real evidence ("absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence") as long as they support your beliefs - got it.

first, Xenu does not come from scripture.

Might want to try that again..."The Scripture of the Scientology religion consists of the writings and recorded spoken words of L. Ron Hubbard on the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology." - http://www.bonafidescientology.org/Chapter/04/index.htm

And though it comes from past writings it is not discernible as valid or true.

Neither is the Bible.

second, being consistent is a requirement for what?

Um, making a logical argument. Although, I am starting to see that making a logical argument is not really your goal.

completely relevant, belief in God is completely relevant in a discussion about believing in God.

My belief in god is irrelevant to the reasons you choose, based on hebrew myths, to believe that elohim created rainbows while at the same time choosing to discard the myths contained in the scriptures of of other religions.

you have no evidence or reason for the former affirmation, yet you criticize those who do the same...not very consistent in a manner of speaking, and i understand that being consistent may be important to you.

You can't be this dense...This is the way rainbows currently behave. Believing that they behaved differently in the past, based on hebrew mythology, is just silly. But then again, you are also defending the "talking donkey" myth so at least you are consistent in defending biblical myths that support your own beliefs.

As for the latter, now you concede that my position is plausible on the basis that it can seemingly be explained by a supernatural force (God) interfering with the conception of natural laws (a phenomenon)

Thanks for believing in rainbows

So saying that supernatural occurrences are impossible is somehow saying that the supernatural is "plausible". Yea, logic doesn't seem to be your thing....