Let's Talk Rainbows

[_SteelHead]

Aboriginal Australian art includes paintings of rainbows dating to 6000 bc. http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Serpent
Does this predate your flood chronology?

[_Buffalo]

Aboriginal Australian art includes paintings of rainbows dating to 6000 bc. http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Serpent
Does this predate your flood chronology?

Oh yes, by nearly 4000 years. Thanks! :)

[_Quasimodo]

I've been watching this thread for a while and it seems to me that everyone has missed the true reason why rainbows existed only after the flood.

It's the same phenomena that allows rabbits to carry baskets of colored eggs. The one that allowed a bean stalk to grow large enough to reach a giant's castle in the sky. The one that allowed the evil, cannibalistic witch in Hansel and Gretel to build a structurally sound cottage out of ginger bread. The one that allows garments to deflect bullets and extinguish flames. Magic!

[_SteelHead]

No, I attributed it all to magic a few posts ago. ;)

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.

[Guest]

...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?

Are you sincerely stating that you can not discern the glaring difference between "does" and "has to" in my above notion?

There can be a difference depending upon how they're applied, per given scenario. But there does not seem to be a difference in this scenario that you are presenting. I interpret that you believe that the rules, at any moment, are continuously and infinitely variable. If that's your case, then so be it. But, given a particular set of rules at any given moment - even if you posit that the rules can change - it would seem that how diffraction DOES work is how it HAS TO work.

But, I'm open to considering any explanation to the contrary.

[_Quasimodo]

No, I attributed it all to magic a few posts ago. ;)

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.

Sorry, SteelHead, I missed that one. I'm glad to see that some else appreciates the value of magic. It explains so much.

[_Buffalo]

I've been watching this thread for a while and it seems to me that everyone has missed the true reason why rainbows existed only after the flood.

It's the same phenomena that allows rabbits to carry baskets of colored eggs. The one that allowed a bean stalk to grow large enough to reach a giant's castle in the sky. The one that allowed the evil, cannibalistic witch in Hansel and Gretel to build a structurally sound cottage out of ginger bread. The one that allows garments to deflect bullets and extinguish flames. Magic!

/thread

[_SteelHead]

Do those of you who believe that there were no rainbows before the flood also believe that Eve was literally formed from Adam's rib? Why or why not?

[_Quasimodo]

Do those of you who believe that there were no rainbows before the flood also believe that Eve was literally formed from Adam's rib? Why or why not?

Sure, why not? Women have 24 ribs. Men have 23. Wait, maybe I should check that.

[_bcuzbcuz]

subgenius wrote:
...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.

IMHO your definition of science lacks nuance. It is also so banal that it is nonsensical. "Does" and "has to" have nothing to do with it. Science is an attempt to understand how nature works through observable, physical evidence. New discoveries may conform with previous theories but these discoveries may contradict previous theories to the point that new theories need to be formed. Our understanding of nature changes, rather often, it seems. Quote: In the words of Karl Popper, "Science is a history of corrected mistakes", and even Albert Einstein remarked of himself "That fellow Einstein . . . every year retracts what he wrote the year before". Unquote

Understanding nature through provable, repeatable observations should have nothing to do with whether the observer is religious or not. Gravity works regardless of religious faith or atheistic tenure.