Let's Talk Rainbows

[_subgenius]

Show your work. Then show that the speed of light was different 4,000 years ago.

I think I will work on this problem. I have research to do and then I will figure it out. As for proving the past I think I will not do that since you ask the impossible. Anyone who thinks they know the past is fooling them self. You can come up with theories but since we have little in direct observation the best we can come up with is a good guess. You can waste your time on those issues I will not.

the incorrect assumption being made by Buffalo, is that the speed of light is an actual constant value...most educated people know better....for example
"The speed of light, one of the most sacrosanct of the universal physical constants, may have been lower as recently as two billion years ago - and not in some far corner of the universe, but right here on Earth."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6 ... ently.html
or
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/19 ... 114024.htm

now given the theory of "big bang" then most certainly light traveled at a different variance of speed then than now....simply because it does not exist, relative to this issue, in a vacuum.
The dull answer being that since the speed of light is influenced by the medium through which it travels, one would have to assume a constancy of that medium over time (ie the earth's atmosphere) - i see no reason to make such an assumption.

[_Buffalo]

the incorrect assumption being made by Buffalo, is that the speed of light is an actual constant value...most educated people know better....for example
"The speed of light, one of the most sacrosanct of the universal physical constants, may have been lower as recently as two billion years ago - and not in some far corner of the universe, but right here on Earth."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6 ... ently.html
or
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/19 ... 114024.htm

now given the theory of "big bang" then most certainly light traveled at a different variance of speed then than now....simply because it does not exist, relative to this issue, in a vacuum.
The dull answer being that since the speed of light is influenced by the medium through which it travels, one would have to assume a constancy of that medium over time (ie the earth's atmosphere) - i see no reason to make such an assumption.

None of this has the slightest to do with whether or not there were rainbows before Noah.

However, there is mention of rainbows before the time frame of the great flood (~2304 BCE). Rainbows are mentioned in in writings that predate the flood by 700 years, so there's no need to wrestle with your fractured understanding of science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbows_i ... _mythology

Sumerian mythology

Not all peoples have regarded the rainbow’s power as solely benevolent. A rather ambiguous perception of the rainbow strikes a vein in all world culture, through its entire storied past.

The Epic of Gilgamesh, who was an ancient Sumerian king (ca.3000 BC), is our first detailed written evidence of human civilization. In a Victorian translation of a Gilgamesh variant, Leonidas Le Cenci Hamilton's Epic of Ishtar and Izdubar, King Izdubar sees "a mass of colors like the rainbow’s hues" that are "linked to divine sanction for war." Later in the epic, Izdubar sees the "glistening colors of the rainbow rise" in the fountain of life next to Elam’s Tree of Immortality.

The Sumerian farmer god Ninurta defends Sumer with a bow and arrow, and wore a crown described as a rainbow.

[_subgenius]

None of this has the slightest to do with whether or not there were rainbows before Noah.

However, there is mention of rainbows before the time frame of the great flood (~2304 BCE). Rainbows are mentioned in in writings that predate the flood by 700 years, so there's no need to wrestle with your fractured understanding of science.

The Epic of Gilgamesh, who was an ancient Sumerian king (ca.3000 BC)

excuse me, but the flood date is 4990 BC
pardon my science wrestling but somehow math has pummeled you....exactly what calendar are you using, and are we to now consider that you are relying on just one of the several calculations available as to the date of noah's ark/flood...and with that date proclaiming your victory in the debate of when rainbows first appeared?

[_Buffalo]

None of this has the slightest to do with whether or not there were rainbows before Noah.

However, there is mention of rainbows before the time frame of the great flood (~2304 BCE). Rainbows are mentioned in in writings that predate the flood by 700 years, so there's no need to wrestle with your fractured understanding of science.

The Epic of Gilgamesh, who was an ancient Sumerian king (ca.3000 BC)

excuse me, but the flood date is 4990 BC
pardon my science wrestling but somehow math has pummeled you....exactly what calendar are you using, and are we to now consider that you are relying on just one of the several calculations available as to the date of noah's ark/flood...and with that date proclaiming your victory in the debate of when rainbows first appeared?

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



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

[_Buffalo]

*crickets*

[_Melchett]

From LDS.org regarding creation http://LDS.org/images/Magazines/Friend/Archive/friendlp.nfo:o:1f14.jpg



Isn't that a colour-in rainbow?

[_Drifting]

excuse me, but the flood date is 4990 BC

LOL!

CFR
(using a Church reference obviously...)

You must be able to, given the quote of yours that I currently use as my signature line...

[Guest]

What happens to photosynthesis in plant, bacteria, plankton etc life if the speed of light changes to the point that it passing through water does not create rainbows?

Buffalo has it right. If the nature of light is changed to the point that prismatic dispersion no longer creates a rainbow then photosynthesis as we know it will not occur and near everything dies from a lack thereof. All of the air breathing mamals and such.

http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/far ... ookps.html

[_SteelHead]

The strict Bible literalist will say that there were no rainbows before the flood because there was no rain. Gen 2:5-6. The problem with this is that it means that the climate and ecology of the planet was radically different than now. This (dearth of rainbows) could only have occurred (because of no rain) if the water cycle of the planet was radically different than now. No evaporation, condensation, deposition cycle.

There would have been no seasons as we know them, no cyclic melt/run off in rivers that in turn become diminishing flows in the fall and winter.The fish that depend on the cycle of a river for their upstream migration and spawning would not have existed. The macro invertebrates that also depend on this cycle in rivers would not have existed. The plant life that we observe that drop their leaves in the fall must not have existed. The ecology would have been so different that the majority of land species and river species could not exist as we know them. The trophic webs are too interlaced, too dependent on the seasons and ebb and flow of water.

This is similar to the arguments from Bible literalist that predators ate vegetables before the flood. These arguments boggle the mind as there are special adaptations demonstrated by predators, and felines are obligate carnivores. Yet the biblical literalist will insist that as the Bible argues that in the garden these beasts ate vegetables, vegetables they did eat.

It is impossible to have any form of rational discussion with those who believe that an omnipotent god can suspend, modify and else wise change all of the rules on a whim and at a moments notice, mitigating all the potential consequence with a word.

A prime example of this is the belief that all of the continents were one until the time of Peleg. Separating South America and Africa to the degree that they are now separated, even over the life span of a patriarch, would have released enormous amounts of energy. The energies involved would have made the global disaster of the flood look like a tempest in a tea-pot and yet the continents were magically ripped asunder without any ill effects, to the point that it only has one passing reference in Genesis. The flood gets chapters, the largest earthquake in geological history is relegated to a single verse.

Debating with people firmly entrenched in such a magical world is mostly futile. See Hoops and the recent global flood debate as a prime example of this. Yet it is an entertaining diversion.

[_bcuzbcuz]

It's universal. Proven.

Your turn.

you are in over your head.
I asked for proof that rainbows have always been around, here, there, and everywhere....you have not proven that.
While we know the physical circumstances that create rainbows, we do not know the origin of these circumstances....or would you rely on "its just because".?

I'm going to butt in here. The Pentateuch was first put into script around 450 BCE. That means the actually recorded history of a rainbow is less than 2500 years old. Aristotle, around 320 BCE, was well into giving a good observational analysis of what he felt caused a rainbow, but he had, nevertheless, equated a rainbow being linked to rainfall.

I'm still looking for older references such as Egyptian, Chinese or Hindic pictures or stories. Haven't found them yet but have no doubt they exist.

You talk about "origins of circumstances" for the occurrence of rainbows. Your question belies your actual quest. You want answers to questions wherein the question is itself non-answerable or it presupposes a given set of circumstances, such as origin or creator.

Physical facts were not ”created”, they don't have an ”origin” or a beginning. There does not exist one day when rainbows did not occur and then the next day that they suddenly started to occur.....unless you interpret the biblical story of the flood to be actual and accurate. In order for you to prove that rainbows ”started” or had an ”origin” you will need to prove Noah's flood. Good luck.