Let's Talk Rainbows

[_bcuzbcuz]

[quote="ludwigm"
Edited to add something from my YOUTH aeons ago...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2FT4FprxDg[/quote]

Thanks for your note and especially the flashback. Looks like your youth and mine coincided.

[_SteelHead]

In a nutshell...... my difficulty with strict biblical literalism, or whatever degree you want to call believing in a global flood, believing that rainbows did not happen, believing in the division of the lands at Peleg is that it is the antithesis of rational.

Said "rational" that the believer must admit was given to man and modeled after god's but which he requires them to turn off, and disregard, in order to believe. God, by their own belief gave them a faculty that he then requires them to wholly subjugate to faith in the undemonstrable. Quite the conundrum.

What do I mean?

The rational person looks at the evidence and tries to derive a conclusion that best supports the evidence. The believer that rainbows never existed till Noah, already has a conclusion. (S)he then must manipulate, massage, and otherwise abuse the evidence till it fits with the conclusion. Introducing such absurdities as "though there was a global flood, the no breath of air (insects and other non lunged life) survived by clinging to weed mats and such." Which begs the question; if they (the insects) could do that, then how come some of the people couldn't have created rafts and such and then just eaten the beasties floating on the mats of weeds.

This type of pseudo science is a prime example of such abuse: http://www.one-gospel.org/thebible/i_thebible_02.htm

Figure 1a reflects this description: a shell of water fully encircling the Earth. The Biblical description of the “water above” cannot be explained as the clouds because the sky is described as the divide between the two layers of water. The “water above” needs to be a shell above the expanse of the sky. How much water was in this shell? That cannot be known. Therefore we arbitrarily split the known quantity of the world’s water into two, and suppose half above the divide, and half beneath. Half of the Earth’s current water supply suspended at the outer edge of the ionosphere (i.e. “top of the sky”) would form a shell of H2O ~ 5 km (3 miles) thick weighing ~ 7x1020 kg.

I love the use of the word arbitrarily. This and other creationist sites also affirm that all of the water from the flood event now constitutes our oceans. Ignoring the fact that volume increases at the cube of the radius and that the volume of water needed to flood the whole earth, does not currently exist in the oceans.

When one has to so abuse science and logic in order to make the evidence fit the conclusion, and ignores the complete lack of any physical evidence supporting the conclusion, it demotes god from the source of all truth to a trickster and a deceiver.

[_bcuzbcuz]

excuse me, but the flood date is 4990 BC

OK, I'll bite. This one I have just got to see! Tell me how you figured out the flood date at 4990 BC.

I'm well acquainted with The Masoretic, Samaritan and Septuagint calendars.

The Masoretic calendar puts the Noah's flood at 1656 years after Adam, The Samaritan Torah date puts Noah at 1307 years after Adam and the Septuagint puts it at 2262 years after Adam. That means Noah got out of the ark somewhere between 1657 and 2263 after creation. Abraham comes along at either 1948 after Adam or 2249 depending on which calendar you choose. But the calendars that come following Abraham's birth are pretty well uniform, at 1976 BCE.

I'll do the math for you. The Masoretic (Hebrew) calendar puts Noah's flood at 2268 BCE, the Samaritan Torah (Hebrew) puts the flood at 2918 BCE and the Septuagint puts the flood at 3048 BCE. There's a discrepancy here of 780 years.

Normally, historical reviews of any calendars would have a great deal of difficulty in accommodating such a discrepancy.....but after all this is the Bible and discrepancy is the name of the game. Imagine if a modern day trial was taking place and the prosecution couldn't decide if the event in question happened last week OR 780 YEARS AGO!

[_canpakes]

This type of pseudo science is a prime example of such abuse: http://www.one-gospel.org/thebible/i_thebible_02.htm

Figure 1a reflects this description: a shell of water fully encircling the Earth. The Biblical description of the “water above” cannot be explained as the clouds because the sky is described as the divide between the two layers of water. The “water above” needs to be a shell above the expanse of the sky. How much water was in this shell? That cannot be known. Therefore we arbitrarily split the known quantity of the world’s water into two, and suppose half above the divide, and half beneath. Half of the Earth’s current water supply suspended at the outer edge of the ionosphere (i.e. “top of the sky”) would form a shell of H2O ~ 5 km (3 miles) thick weighing ~ 7x1020 kg.

Wow. Interesting page. But, it does lead to more than a few questions right off the bat, three of which are below -

1. If, as the referenced page suggests, that rainbows were imperceptible because light had to pass through a layer of water and the light rays were then rendered 'not parallel', wouldn't this claim be dependent upon every smidgeon of light energy reaching the viewer needing to be at a completely unique angle than any other, in order to avoid any being parallel? Doesn't that ignore rational odds?

2. If, as some have argued in this topic, that the speed of light may have changed over time and that this leads one to not be able to perceive a rainbow, and being that a rainbow is simply the perception of various wavelengths of light differentiated, and given that the concept of this perception of any given wavelength is the same as if we are looking at any color at all from any source be it a rainbow or otherwise... wouldn't the claim that rainbows were imperceptible due to 'a difference in the speed of light' also be an argument in favor of all colors being imperceptible? In other words - with this theory - Noah lived in either a colorless and/or very dark world...

3. Last, if an attempt is going to be made to explain a mythical event with rational science, how does it follow then that in order to do so the author has merely created a new mythical starting point ('a shell of water around the Earth three miles thick') that has no explanation?

I'm not terribly scientifically minded, so if some of those defending the 'water shell' theory could offer some explanations to the above or school me where my reasoning has gone south, please jump in. After all, it's early in the AM, so I'm particularly susceptible to my brain still being asleep at this hour. :)

[_subgenius]

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. ...(insert more assumptions here)..."
If we start with the simple religious concept which recognizes that there, in fact, things of this world which science can not explain, then we see how foolish it is for those who would insist that science can explain everything. There is a subtle difference lost within your post.
The huge mistake in your post is that it echoes the fallacy of many atheists...you see, atheists refuse to accept that religious folk tend to understand that science as a method to describe how nature DOES work...because the atheist insists that science is a method that describes how nature HAS TO work. The 18th century called this latter view of science "naturalism"....fortunately most have grown their understanding of the world since then....most. While i appreciate how many people hold fast to these roots of the early division between church and science, they seem to ignore simple logic.

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.

yet here you are boring the rest of us with cliché' atheist-like posts....so, glad to have you lower your self for such "diversions"....it must be refreshing to take a break from the serious and important work which, no doubt, otherwise fills your day.

[Guest]

Yep I will make simple assumptions like the sun will rise tomorrow like it did today, and it will continue to follow the laws physics of in those regards. I am not the one who has to explain how obligated carnivors instantaneously turned from herbivores to carnivores, or how conditons that will not support rainbows will support the ecology of life........ You are. I am not the one proposing theories such as a 3 mile thick sphere of ice encompassing the ionosphere, that blocks rainbows and yet photosynthesis still worked.

I would say that there are things in this universe that we can not fully explain yet. But, the "the Bible says it is so, and so it is" belief is only relevant in your mind.

My amusements are simple, it is a refreshing break from my work. Thank you for being of service.

[_Drifting]

Yep I will make simple assumptions like the sun will rise tomorrow like did today, and it will continue to follow the laws physics of in those regards. I am not the one who has to explain how obligated carnivors instantaneously turned from herbivores to carnivores, or how conditons that will not support rainbows will support the ecology of life........ You are.

Steelhead,

You seem to be suggesting that...

''the courtesy and burden for proof is always on he who makes the claim''

[_subgenius]

*crickets*

we are talking about the Epic of Gilgamesh? which has the flood story in it also? a flood story likely from the even older Sumerian stories? a flood myth which appears across the global history with little chance of "being shared" due to geographic isolation?

Now let us see the timeline...hmmmm.... (by the way double-check your misleading timeline reference above)Also reference the story of creation and the Scopes monkey trial.
but first let us see about time in the Bible

Reference 2 Peter 3:8
"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."
or Psalm 90:4
"For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night."
or Numbers 14:33-34
or Ezekiel 4:4-6
Now, realize that the Hebrew word for "weeks" is actually just the plural of seven...or "sevens"...with no attachment to days, hours, weeks, or years.
see also Daniel 12:9

NOW, back up to Genesis 2:17 where clearly we read:
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (emphasis mine)
Now we know the scriptures have Adam dying when he is 1000 years old...and that everyone who perished in the Flood died just shy of 1000 years of age....hmmmm...seems like a "day" with the Lord is actually 1000 years....a calculation that is supported by the scriptures.


Do you really want to continue down this path to further reveal your cursory understanding of the scriptures and the relevance and/or meaning of time therein?

[_SteelHead]

Subgenius,
since you are the one with the deep insight into the biblical timeline, could you please provide us with a date for the global flood?

Would you also support your date and argue how it is more correct than the other time-lines that the majority of biblical scholars agree upon?

[_Buffalo]

*crickets*

we are talking about the Epic of Gilgamesh? which has the flood story in it also? a flood story likely from the even older Sumerian stories? a flood myth which appears across the global history with little chance of "being shared" due to geographic isolation?

Now let us see the timeline...hmmmm.... (by the way double-check your misleading timeline reference above)Also reference the story of creation and the Scopes monkey trial.
but first let us see about time in the Bible

Reference 2 Peter 3:8
"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."
or Psalm 90:4
"For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night."
or Numbers 14:33-34
or Ezekiel 4:4-6
Now, realize that the Hebrew word for "weeks" is actually just the plural of seven...or "sevens"...with no attachment to days, hours, weeks, or years.
see also Daniel 12:9

NOW, back up to Genesis 2:17 where clearly we read:
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (emphasis mine)
Now we know the scriptures have Adam dying when he is 1000 years old...and that everyone who perished in the Flood died just shy of 1000 years of age....hmmmm...seems like a "day" with the Lord is actually 1000 years....a calculation that is supported by the scriptures.


Do you really want to continue down this path to further reveal your cursory understanding of the scriptures and the relevance and/or meaning of time therein?

The church has already given the official date of the flood. The Epic of Gilgamesh predates the flood by nearly a millennium and mentions rainbows. You've lost the argument. Quit while you're behind, Corky.

By the way, do you know the origin of the new testament trope about a day being 1000 years? It was the early Christian apologetic excuse for why the world hadn't ended yet. It was supposed to happen within the lifetime of the first group of Christians.

Otherwise, I guess Jesus was dead for 3000 years instead of three days. Actually, it's only been 2000 years.