Let's Talk Rainbows

[_canpakes]

...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.

Actually, aren't these two concepts one and the same at any given moment? Until the rules are changed arbitrarily, at which point they are teh same again, for the 'new' set of rules, correct?

Or, to put it another way, why would anyone be using the scientific 'rules of today' to explain a process that seems to have (or is claimed to have) resulted from a different set of rules that no longer applies? Between the exclusion of those items that still remain unexplained (the water shell) to those that would seem incorrectly explained (speed of light as relates to color visibility; diffraction issues), how is this different then simply making things up out of thin air and then plastering a thin veneer of scientific-sounding jargon over it?

[_subgenius]

Steelhead,

You seem to be suggesting that...

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

and i have already asked you to provide yours for the OP's claim that refraction/rainbows are eternal and universal.
still waiting

[_subgenius]

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?

apparently you do want to.....blissful ain't it?
so much for actually reading the references, eh? who has time for that and snarky comments, right?

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.

like i said Petunia, re-check your reference.

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.

wow, you are deeply entrenched aren't you.
were my scripture references to wordy for you?

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

i thought we were talking about an Old Testament story???

[_Drifting]

Steelhead,

You seem to be suggesting that...

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

and i have already asked you to provide yours for the OP's claim that refraction/rainbows are eternal and universal.
still waiting

That's funny, because I thought the OP said this:

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?

[_Buffalo]

i thought we were talking about an Old Testament story???

You're obviously not intelligent enough to continue with this, nor even respond to anything I said directly. The church gives an official date for the flood - close to 2200 BCE. Your argument is with the LDS church.

But rainbows are mentioned far earlier than that, as I said. Ergo, you're wrong. Deal with it.

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

[_Drifting]

A rainbow is an optical and meteorological phenomenon that causes a spectrum of light to appear in the sky when the Sun shines on to droplets of moisture in the Earth's atmosphere. It takes the form of a multicoloured arc. Rainbows caused by sunlight always appear in the section of sky directly opposite the sun.

It would seem that the necessary ingredients for making a rainbow are:
1. A Sun
2. Moisture
3. Eyes

I am led to believe that these three ingredients existed prior to the Great Flood of Noah which Mormon scripture tells us took place circa 2-3,000 bc.

So God sent a sign several millenea earlier than it was going to be needed and was gambling that Noah wouldn't notice it (and no one would point it out to him) prior to the wiping out by drowning of all but 8 of the earths inhabitants. Phew, God got lucky on that one...

[_subgenius]

...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.

Actually, aren't these two concepts one and the same at any given moment? Until the rules are changed arbitrarily, at which point they are the same again, for the 'new' set of rules, correct?

no, to the first question....and 'incorrect" to the second.

Or, to put it another way,

you mean another wrong way...why?

why would anyone be using the scientific 'rules of today' to explain a process that seems to have (or is claimed to have) resulted from a different set of rules that no longer applies? Between the exclusion of those items that still remain unexplained (the water shell) to those that would seem incorrectly explained (speed of light as relates to color visibility; diffraction issues), how is this different then simply making things up out of thin air and then plastering a thin veneer of scientific-sounding jargon over it?

oh ,i see why now...to add a level of incoherence.
Are you sincerely stating that you can not discern the glaring difference between "does" and "has to" in my above notion?

[_subgenius]

You're obviously not intelligent enough to continue with this, nor even respond to anything I said directly.

the irony of how this phrase can be applied as a response to every post you seem to submit is delightful.
No need to insult me though, had i known you were not willing nor able to discuss actual scriptures i would not have brought them up.

[_subgenius]

That's funny, because I thought the OP said this:

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?

yes, but you have failed to provide cause for why it is so "hard to believe"
if it is just your personal opinion, then clearly all this exercise is futile.

[_Buffalo]

You're obviously not intelligent enough to continue with this, nor even respond to anything I said directly.

the irony of how this phrase can be applied as a response to every post you seem to submit is delightful.
No need to insult me though, had i known you were not willing nor able to discuss actual scriptures i would not have brought them up.

I notice that once again you fail to respond to anything I said. The church has already given the date of the flood. Unless your argument is that the church is in error, there is nothing left for you to argue. :)