Let's Talk Rainbows

[_subgenius]

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!

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

[_subgenius]

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.

At least you admit it is an opinion, albeit less than humble....do be careful with quotations..."by them one can damn anything".
Nevertheless, the simple distinction between "does" and "has to" is summarized by the following question and your response to it:
Does the supernatural exist?

[_Melchett]

excuse me, but the flood date is 4990 BC

You have not answered this question.

[_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!

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

Your obvious butthurt aside, why is it you can't seem to directly respond to the facts put forth in this thread?

Love your sig by the way. :)

[_SteelHead]

Rainbows in 8000 year old cave art? Anyone? Predates Sub's flood date by 1000 years.

[_subgenius]

Rainbows in 8000 year old cave art? Anyone? Predates Sub's flood date by 1000 years.

should we have the carbon-dating argument now, or do you have any other possible corroboration for that date?

[_Melchett]

Rainbows in 8000 year old cave art? Anyone? Predates Sub's flood date by 1000 years.

should we have the carbon-dating argument now, or do you have any other possible corroboration for that date?

We are still waiting for your answer to the flood date that you provided.

[_Buffalo]

Rainbows in 8000 year old cave art? Anyone? Predates Sub's flood date by 1000 years.

should we have the carbon-dating argument now, or do you have any other possible corroboration for that date?

Do you admit that your flood date was wrong, out of harmony with the Church's date?

If you're retreating back to questioning carbon dating, you've already lost the argument.

[_subgenius]

We are still waiting for your answer to the flood date that you provided.

your answer first, please
besides i already gave the answer...just happens that you would have to do the math yourself.

[_subgenius]

Do you admit that your flood date was wrong, out of harmony with the Church's date?

If you're retreating back to questioning carbon dating, you've already lost the argument.

so, far no argument has been proposed. The OP has yet to justify the notion that rainbows have always existed.
Additionally, you have yet to actually, as previously noted, re-check your sunday school diagram as a relevant source for the church's position on the date of the flood.
My flood date is as valid as anyone else's.