Let's Talk Rainbows

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Post Reply
_Franktalk
_Emeritus
Posts: 2689
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Let's Talk Rainbows

Post by _Franktalk »

bcuzbcuz wrote:
Franktalk wrote: It is a theory about light and how it traveled through space differently in the past.


In your first reference article it states, "Their data seemed to show that a small (but statistically significant) decrease in "c" had occurred during the past 400 years."

No! What it actually shows is that ESTIMATES of the speed of light have decreased over the past 400 years. The speed of light has gone from "infinite" down to 300,000 km per second. I wouldn't call that a "small" decrease in speed if we were actually talking about the speed of light and not simply our ability to measure it acurately.


Are you telling me that the fabric of space has always been the same? If we go back in time 18 billion years is the fabric of space the same?
_ludwigm
_Emeritus
Posts: 10158
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:07 am

Re: Let's Talk Rainbows

Post by _ludwigm »

Franktalk wrote:
ludwigm wrote:by the way
viewtopic.php?p=226556#p226556 Posted: 2009.03.04
viewtopic.php?p=485099#p485099 Posted: 2011.07.26


My question to you is did you read the papers or did you search his name and just parrot back what others have said?

I DID read them. All of available.
I don't listen podcast, I don't watch videos - in general. I read the texts. All of them.
See my links, please.
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco
- To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Let's Talk Rainbows

Post by _Buffalo »

Image
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_Franktalk
_Emeritus
Posts: 2689
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Let's Talk Rainbows

Post by _Franktalk »

ludwigm wrote:I DID read them. All of available.
I don't listen podcast, I don't watch videos - in general. I read the texts. All of them.
See my links, please.


I did read your post. Where in your post do you give your opinion of what you read? I see links to others. As you can tell I voice my opinion about many things. I also explain why I feel that way. At times I also post links to support those beliefs. I care more about what you think about a subject than the guys at talkorigins. If you read my post carefully you will see that I don't trust any theories of the past, even the ones in which I link to. I do not think we know or can know for sure what happened in the past. On top of that I believe in supernatural events which when added to the mix makes a clear picture of the past impossible. For me I have chosen to believe in the powers of God and have given up on explaining the past by trace evidence. I have no problem with the scientific method of testing and observation but the past is not something we can directly observe or test in a repeatable experiment.

So you may trust the assumptions linked to the analysis of trace evidence of the past. That is your choice. I choose not to accept those assumptions. I choose instead to accept my worldview which includes a spirit world with powers over this world. For me it is a reasonable worldview and one born from many hours of research and seeking difficult questions. The people who cast off the possibility of a spirit world have concentrated on a part of reality. Within that closed set of natural data they have formed an opinion about the natural world. I accept that many do this and it is reasonable within that worldview. My post are just given to show a greater reality that I believe in and to show that there are many theories out there that many are not aware of. How you deal with these ideas is a personal choice.
_subgenius
_Emeritus
Posts: 13326
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: Let's Talk Rainbows

Post by _subgenius »

bcuzbcuz wrote:I'll bypass the garble in Genesis 6 of the numbering of human days, being 120 years, since I know without a doubt I'll never even come close to that age and I sincerely doubt anyone on this board ever has or ever will.

I'll skip all the nonsense of the Lord regretting his creating humans and all living things on the planet (after he declared them all good a few chapters before).

I'll avoid the endless arguments of trying to figure out how Noah got all species....sorry, kinds of animals,.... 2 by 2 or 7evens aboard a wooden structure, three storey ship. I'll even let it slip through that feeding all of these animals requires another miracle or three.

I'll skip over all the lacking of geological evidence of any worldwide flood.

I'll avoid getting into a discussion of Ken Ham preaching that Noah brought the dinosaurs on board (after all, he's not Mormon)

I'll dismiss the impossibility of genetic variation in present animals and humans developing in the mere 4000 years since the flood.

Let's just stick to what Genesis 9 says that God did in his covenant to Noah following the flood. (Genesis 9: 11-17).

Do Mormons honestly believe that, prior to the flood, that the optical division of light rays into a visible spectrum of six colours never happened? Now granted, the Bible doesn't mention anything about lawn water sprinkling systems and waterfalls are only mentioned in Psalms, but rain must have happened sometime between Adam and Noah. After all, when God tells Noah that he's going to cause rain for 40 days and 39 nights there is no excited expletives from Noah asking "What the Hell is rain?"

Wait a minute, Genesis 2:6 says there was a mist that watered the earth. Are we to believe that no one, ever, saw anything similar to a rainbow in this mist?

Think back to water sprinklers....mist.... When was the last time you looked at a mist? Did you see a rainbow?

I find it hard to believe that the physical properties of light dispersion were voided for the 1500+ years between Adam and Noah. Anyone here with an opinion?

a little later i will gladly dismantle your post's purported logic and confusions. (inadequacies at best)

But to answer your question
Does not a rainbow require light to pass through the "mist".
Is your assumption that this mist was occurring during a sunny and cloudless day?
Simply put, if we are to assume that a mist or rainfall covered the entire earth, then it is quite reasonable that the sun was blocked out by clouds.
Furthermore, are you not working on the assumption that rainbows had not been seen before?
The notion that they were created at the moment of the covenant is not something the scriptures specifically describe.
Furthermore, there is no indication in the scriptures that it had ever rained before (Noah's explicatives may have been censored out)
Or, rather you are making assumptions about the laws of refraction for which you can not support....unless you consider them to be universal, eternal, and infinite....do you?

That being said, aren't you really missing the point of the story?
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Let's Talk Rainbows

Post by _Buffalo »

subgenius wrote:That being said, aren't you really missing the point of the story?


A fable about the first wine maker combined with a fable about a global flood?
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_Franktalk
_Emeritus
Posts: 2689
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Let's Talk Rainbows

Post by _Franktalk »

I think the flood had far reaching changes to the world and this universe. I think we get a clue from 2 Peter.

2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.

Now for all of you who say why doesn't God do those things today Peter tells us.

2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

So all of this uniformitarianism is God's doing.
_Quasimodo
_Emeritus
Posts: 11784
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:11 am

Re: Let's Talk Rainbows

Post by _Quasimodo »

subgenius wrote:Or, rather you are making assumptions about the laws of refraction for which you can not support....unless you consider them to be universal, eternal, and infinite....do you?



I think it's fine if you want to express your personal viewpoints based on your religious beliefs.

When you argue against Issac Newton and the laws of physics, you sound little silly. Stick to what you know (just a tip).
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
_Franktalk
_Emeritus
Posts: 2689
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Let's Talk Rainbows

Post by _Franktalk »

Quasimodo wrote:
subgenius wrote:Or, rather you are making assumptions about the laws of refraction for which you can not support....unless you consider them to be universal, eternal, and infinite....do you?



I think it's fine if you want to express your personal viewpoints based on your religious beliefs.

When you argue against Issac Newton and the laws of physics, you sound little silly. Stick to what you know (just a tip).


When did Issac Newton ever say that the laws of nature were eternal?

http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/is ... le-faq.htm

"I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, while the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."

Issac Newton

Why would you give an opinion to Issac Newton that he clearly did not hold?
_subgenius
_Emeritus
Posts: 13326
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: Let's Talk Rainbows

Post by _subgenius »

Quasimodo wrote:
subgenius wrote:Or, rather you are making assumptions about the laws of refraction for which you can not support....unless you consider them to be universal, eternal, and infinite....do you?



I think it's fine if you want to express your personal viewpoints based on your religious beliefs.

When you argue against Issac Newton and the laws of physics, you sound little silly. Stick to what you know (just a tip).


I am of course willing to entertain an argument that clearly illustrates the evidence which concludes that the laws of refraction are universal, eternal, and infinite.
As for Newton, i suggest you look into "Planet X"....but it may be simpler to suggest that the theory of general relativity from Einstein did not prove Newton wrong but rather "explained" things differently...(reference: orbit of mercury)
Not to mention the laws of motion

practice what you preach my friend....because your post seems to disregard modern science...and that seems a little silly
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
Post Reply