Rainbows!

[juvenissun]

Nah. Nothing to think about. That ancient people used preexisting, observed physical phenomena in their myths isn't evidence that their myths are true. Chew on that for a bit, bro.

It happened that they picked up the feature which uniquely characterizes the nature of atmosphere of the earth, which is a direct consequence of the Global Flood. Smart one like you will certainly not be able to do that.

 

[Buy Bologna]

If I believed this I'd be inclined towards the latter view.

It seems as though water not refracting light would be on par with a triangle whose corners don't amount to 180 degrees.

But maybe I'm wrong who knows?

i myself think the eye being managed would be more logical.

Atmospheric changing doesn't change the fact the fact the light has red through violet in it.

Even in space the spectrum is there.

 

[juvenissun]

i myself think the eye being managed would be more logical.

Atmospheric changing doesn't change the fact the fact the light has red through violet in it.

Even in space the spectrum is there.

Do you see a rainbow today? Chances are that you don't.

Why not? Is there sunlight? (yes). Is there moisture in the air? (yes). Is the angle of refraction right? (yes). So, why don't you see the rainbow? Do you think your eyes have some problems? (No).

 

[sandwiches]

It happened that they picked up the feature which uniquely characterizes the nature of atmosphere of the earth, which is a direct consequence of the Global Flood. Smart one like you will certainly not be able to do that.

I highlighted your guesswork. Provide evidence for this claim or let's just dismiss is as what it is: Nonsense.

 

[juvenissun]

I highlighted your guesswork. Provide evidence for this claim or let's just dismiss is as what it is: Nonsense.

You do not even know how to reason. I am showing you the evidence. You should say: please "explain" this evidence.

 

[sandwiches]

You do not even know how to reason. I am showing you the evidence. You should say: please "explain" this evidence.

Then, I'll go along with you. How are they evidence for the Flood?

To be honest, I am expecting one of your usual "I am not going to waste my time teaching you" remarks or something similar.

 

[juvenissun]

Then, I'll go along with you. How are they evidence for the Flood?

To be honest, I am expecting one of your usual "I am not going to waste my time teaching you" remarks or something similar.

The way I usually do and usually encountered is like this:

Me: explanation 1a
???: wrong
Me: explanation 1b
???: wrong
Me: why should I continue?
???: ???

I don't think YOU will be any different from that ???. Do you want to try?

 

[sandwiches]

The way I usually do and usually encountered is like this:

Me: explanation 1a
???: wrong
Me: explanation 1b
???: wrong
Me: why should I continue?
???: ???

I don't think YOU will be any different from that ???. Do you want to try?

Only if you accept the possibility you could, indeed, be wrong. Same as I accept the possibility I could be wrong. If you're incapable of even considering that your idea could be faulty, then this will be a mere monologue and not a discussion or dialogue.

So, how are rainbows evidence of a global flood?

 

[juvenissun]

Only if you accept the possibility you could, indeed, be wrong. Same as I accept the possibility I could be wrong. If you're incapable of even considering that your idea could be faulty, then this will be a mere monologue and not a discussion or dialogue.

So, how are rainbows evidence of a global flood?

I am not sure how much would it take. But let it begin:

To have rainbow as a common, and a constant visible feature to eyes on the ground, the conditions of the atmosphere is, in fact, quite restricted and limited. It take more than just rain drops and sunlight. As a result, I figured that the earth is probably the only planet in the solar system which has this constant atmospheric feature.

How am I doing so far?

 

[The Nihilist]

Only if you accept the possibility you could, indeed, be wrong. Same as I accept the possibility I could be wrong. If you're incapable of even considering that your idea could be faulty, then this will be a mere monologue and not a discussion or dialogue.

So, how are rainbows evidence of a global flood?

Sandwiches, don't you know? Something is evidence if juvenissun says it!

 

[juvenissun]

Sandwiches, don't you know? Something is evidence if juvenissun says it!

I said many times: you have to understand what you see. It is very important.

I am not an economist. Many of them talked about the "evidence" of hyperinflation, etc. But I just can not see (understand) what they said. So, if hyperinflation happened 5 months later, I can not say that I did not see the "evidence". I did see it, but I did not understand.

 

[The Nihilist]

I said many times: you have to understand what you see. It is very important.

I am not an economist. Many of them talked about the "evidence" of hyperinflation, etc. But I just can not see (understand) what they said. So, if hyperinflation happened 5 months later, I can not say that I did not see the "evidence". I did see it, but I did not understand.

No, you're speculating wildly and asserting that it's evidence. If you want to be taken seriously, cite sources to back up your claims.

 

[juvenissun]

No, you're speculating wildly and asserting that it's evidence. If you want to be taken seriously, cite sources to back up your claims.

That is a stupid request in this case. What I said so far are all common sense. There is no need to do that.

The most profound feature of earth sciences is that you put several common features together, then you get a very mysterious fact which demands an explanation we do not have yet. The rainbow is such an example.

 

[The Nihilist]

That is a stupid request in this case. What I said so far are all common sense. There is no need to do that.

You do if you want to be taken seriously. That you think something is "common sense" doesn't make it true.

The most profound feature of earth sciences is that you put several common features together, then you get a very mysterious fact which demands an explanation we do not have yet. The rainbow is such an example.

There's not a damn thing about rainbows that's mysterious.

 

[juvenissun]

You do if you want to be taken seriously. That you think something is "common sense" doesn't make it true.


There's not a damn thing about rainbows that's mysterious.

You sounds unteachable now. So, quit it.

 

[Vanderhaust]

Let's examine your two claims.

#1 God changed our eyes so we can now see rainbows
or
#2 God changed the nature of the universe so that rainbows become visible

Going solely on common sense, both of these propositions seem to be false conclusions. Common sense would dictate that if the both the bible and science doesn't back up you claim, then chances are not many people will support your proposition. Simply put, your claim is 6000 years ago, either God changed the laws of physics so that rainbows could be or become visible or that God caused a mutation or mini-evolution in the human eye so that our eyes could start seeing rainbows.

I have a new proposition for you that God and the laws of the universe are constant and unchanging and using common sense would conclude that rainbows and our ability to see them has never changed.

 

[juvenissun]

Let's examine your two claims.

#1 God changed our eyes so we can now see rainbows
or
#2 God changed the nature of the universe so that rainbows become visible

Going solely on common sense, both of these propositions seem to be false conclusions. Common sense would dictate that if the both the bible and science doesn't back up you claim, then chances are not many people will support your proposition. Simply put, your claim is 6000 years ago, either God changed the laws of physics so that rainbows could be or become visible or that God caused a mutation or mini-evolution in the human eye so that our eyes could start seeing rainbows.

I have a new proposition for you that God and the laws of the universe are constant and unchanging and using common sense would conclude that rainbows and our ability to see them has never changed.

Everything is changing all the time. Right?

 

[sandwiches]

I am not sure how much would it take. But let it begin:

To have rainbow as a common, and a constant visible feature to eyes on the ground, the conditions of the atmosphere is, in fact, quite restricted and limited. It take more than just rain drops and sunlight. As a result, I figured that the earth is probably the only planet in the solar system which has this constant atmospheric feature.

How am I doing so far?

I don't know about constant on Earth but rainbows will definitely form in any other planet where light can refract due to atmospheric gases, such as methane.

For the sake of discussion, let's assume that they are more likely on Earth than on any other planet in the Solar System and let's move on.

 

[The Nihilist]

You sounds unteachable now. So, quit it.

If you had facts to present, I'd listen to them. Instead, you present assertions as facts.

 

[juvenissun]

If you had facts to present, I'd listen to them. Instead, you present assertions as facts.

I only talks about facts. You do not see what I said so far. There is no use to go further.