Rainbow, God made this after Noah's Flood.

[PsychoSarah]

You still don't seem to get it, so IDK.

-_- you do know that a good portion of Christians turn atheist by learning MORE about their own religion, right? I can understand your religion entirely, and still not believe in the deity you worship. To think otherwise is willful ignorance on your part. I "get it" just fine, the basic concepts of Christianity are not that complicated. I read the bible at the age of 13, and did not end up becoming a believer. I've read more since then; still not a believer. Been a member of a few churches, and I am still not a believer. Understanding does not equal belief, and it insults and alienates people outside of your faith when you express as much.

 

[timewerx]

Your post said "time of the dinosaurs and some time after the K-T event" The time of the dinosaurs was before the K-T event some 65,000,000 YBP hence why I said it was a contradiction.

I was stating both, before the K-T event (where dinosaurs are still alive) and also after,(period where all dinosaurs have gone extinct) up to the age of mammals.

As the driving factor for the gigantism of dinosaurs and early mammals was the much high pressure atmosphere Earth used to have. Both to respiration advantages and the bouyancy effect of a high density atmosphere so that giant creatures would have no problem with mobility.

 

[Kenny'sID]

-_- you do know that a good portion of Christians turn atheist by learning MORE about their own religion, right? I can understand your religion entirely, and still not believe in the deity you worship. To think otherwise is willful ignorance on your part. I "get it" just fine, the basic concepts of Christianity are not that complicated. I read the bible at the age of 13, and did not end up becoming a believer. I've read more since then; still not a believer. Been a member of a few churches, and I am still not a believer. Understanding does not equal belief, and it insults and alienates people outside of your faith when you express as much.

I hear you...doesn't change a thing of what I said..

 

[Ophiolite]

I didnt say rainbows a really unusual. I said they were rare.

In English usage something that is rare is less common than something that is really unusual.

Let's assume you see 40 rainbows a year (in the sky - which is incredible.)

So, you don't believe me! That's a good way to start your argument. (You said it was incredible = not believable.)

To have a rainbow, we need rain, sunlight, and an atmosphere. The Northeast has the rainiest days - about 170/year. But, every day it rains isn't a day a rainbow will occur especially given the lattitude.

I live in the North East. My son in law lives in the North East, you make reference to the Northeast and yet none of these places are the same. (NE of Scotland, NE of England, NE of the USA (?))You seem to be wedded to a very parochial worldview.

And I have seen at least as five distinct rainbows at different times on one day.

And I am not counting the double rainbows that are visible on around 10%-15% of sightings.



It really isn't difficult. Satisfy these conditions.

The sun is shining. It is low in the sky. There is a rain shower. Automatically there must, under these conditions, be a rainbow. All that is required for you to see it is that you be placed between the rain shower and the sun. (And that you take the trouble to look up.)

These are not difficult conditions to meet. They are not rare. They are not very unusual.

 

[JackRT]

As the driving factor for the gigantism of dinosaurs and early mammals was the much high pressure atmosphere Earth used to have. Both to respiration advantages and the bouyancy effect of a high density atmosphere so that giant creatures would have no problem with mobility.

Aside from the fact that there is no conclusive evidence that the earth had a much higher pressure atmosphere at the time of the dinosaurs and until as little as 10 thousand years ago, gigantism still exists primarily in Africa. The largest of the dinosaurs all seem to have been semi-aquatic. Water buoyancy relieved the gravitational stress of gigantism. The largest creature to ever live is the blue whale which is fully aquatic. The giant mammals of the Americas and remote areas of Eurasia all disappeared with the arrival of man in those areas. They all disappeared within a thousand years of man's arrival. The reason for their survival in Africa is linked to the fact that there they evolved alongside of humanity and developed an instinct to avoid mankind. This worked well for them until very recently when human population pressure and the AK-47 are devastating their numbers.

 

[timewerx]

Aside from the fact that there is no conclusive evidence that the earth had a much higher pressure atmosphere at the time of the dinosaurs and until as little as 10 thousand years ago, gigantism still exists primarily in Africa. The largest of the dinosaurs all seem to have been semi-aquatic. Water buoyancy relieved the gravitational stress of gigantism. The largest creature to ever live is the blue whale which is fully aquatic. The giant mammals of the Americas and remote areas of Eurasia all disappeared with the arrival of man in those areas. They all disappeared within a thousand years of man's arrival. The reason for their survival in Africa is linked to the fact that there they evolved alongside of humanity and developed an instinct to avoid mankind. This worked well for them until very recently when human population pressure and the AK-47 are devastating their numbers.

There is some evidence like species of flora and fauna existing uniformly across all latitudes during the time of the Dinosaurs.

It would be impossible today because of the huge variation in temperature between the polar and equatorial regions.

However, a very thick atmosphere would evenly distribute global temperatures just like in Venus and enable uniform flora and fauna across all latitudes.

References:
How Exoplanet Atmosphere Density Can Change Odds of Alien Life
The Thick Atmosphere Theory

 

[Larniavc]

Yes they are. You see them only if the conditions are right. It just so happens you see them happen more than once in your lifetime, so you consider it not rare. In reality, all conditions need to be met to make a rainbow - which is not common at all (although, it is considered commonplace.)


They do not happen every single time there is rain, so in that alone, it isnt common - if it was, it would happen more than, say, five times a year - because angles of incidence, construction of waveforms and opacity still matter today - despite the thinness of the atmosphere today. Your position, even, and the position of the sun relative to you matter.

We take for granted what a "rainbow" or halo actually is, and it's "commonality" because our ambience is thin enough to see rainbows on small scales (like waterfalls, hoses, etc.)

But, the SKY BOW - the colloquial rainbow that occurs in the skybwhen it rains, is rare. You have to be at the right latitude at the right time, with the right angle of inclination, and right atmospheric density of water hit by light at the right angle of incidence.

It is not common, and is a reminder of the promise God made because of its rarity, as that phenomenon never happened in a time when the atmosphere was denser than a rain forest - in a time when it never rained.

I saw two today and I was showing my son one last week.

Commonplace.

 

[Larniavc]

How so? When I said after the K-T event I meant exactly after the time of the Dinosaurs, after they became extinct. The mammals that succeeded the dinosaurs also showed gigantism.

The really big ones were about 30 million years ago.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

I saw two today and I was showing my son one last week.

Commonplace.

How many have you seen in the last 450 days?

(It isn't actually common; we are confusing local frequency - mode - with actual occurrences over an accepted interval - a measurement of rarity.)

If your interval of sighting is three days, then it is incredibly commonplace.

If you have seen three this week, but only 15 in the past 500 days, that is not so common at a 3% sighting.

 

[Larniavc]

How many have you seen in the last 450 days?

(It isn't actually common; we are confusing local frequency - mode - with actual occurrences over an accepted interval - a measurement of rarity.)

If your interval of sighting is three days, then it is incredibly commonplace.

If you have seen three this week, but only 15 in the past 500 days, that is not so common at a 3% sighting.

Can we pretend that we had a long discussion on the definition of the word 'rare', got bored and agreed to never speak of it again?

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Can we pretend that we had a long discussion on the definition of the word 'rare', got bored and agreed to never speak of it again?

No, because for some reason people are ignoring fundamental physics, mathematical qualifications and even the initial conditional affect on rarity itself. There is a very large academic and philosophical (colloquial) gulf on what can be agreed upon as rare.

I tried to explicitly state the physics involve in why sky bows are rare to begin with; that explanation of rarity was met with exceptions to rarity that only perturb the overall rarity of the system - like someone at a specific location, in a specific latitude, during a specific season, under a certain weather system seeing rainbows multiple times within a small window of sighting.

Then, I continued to try to explain why those exception were exceptions, and why it should be noted, but not attributed to the overall rarity of sky bows (I even defined a sky bow in comparison to other diffraction phenomena.)

That was still met with exceptions to general rarity - based on specific conditions perhaps unknown to the poster(s).

Now, we are at a point of argumentative tugging because the entirety of the point of the rarity of a sky bow is being traded for persons who are trying to find their best exceptions to that. But, these are still exceptions - based on several variable parameters that do not stay the same throughout the year, or at all.

If this was simply a colloquial conversation, then rarity would be subjective. But, given that we can use solar physics to calculate the probability of a rainbow at a particular time, at a particular place, in a prticular season, with respect to global angles - the issue of rarity is quantifiable, and therefore much more objective than anectdotal evidences. I even offered to explicitly show this through the math and physics in another thread - to differentiate between a denotative rarity, and what seems to be the consentual (colloquial) view of rarity.


The irony is that if we are just all talking as laypersons on without any formalized physical reference points, it can certainly be argued that sky bows are not rare (this is where personal experience comes in.) I thought, however, we were making a shift to quantatative analysis of the rarity of rainbows - through actual measurements of parameters.

Before we even get there, there would still have to be an agreement on what quantatative rarity is accepted as... so it might be a good idea to forget it. But, I actually thought quantatative analysis of the physics of rainbows would have been an exciting exercise.


This entire "rarity" issue blew up because I definitively said sky bows are rare (already having a estimated calculation of the probability of a rainbow happening at specific parameters.) But, we can definitely forget about it, as it seems to have derailed from the entire OP.

 

[Larniavc]

No, because for some reason people are ignoring fundamental physics, mathematical qualifications and even the initial conditional affect on rarity itself. There is a very large academic and philosophical (colloquial) gulf on what can be agreed upon as rare.

I tried to explicitly state the physics involve in why sky bows are rare to begin with; that explanation of rarity was met with exceptions to rarity that only perturb the overall rarity of the system - like someone at a specific location, in a specific latitude, during a specific season, under a certain weather system seeing rainbows multiple times within a small window of sighting.

Then, I continued to try to explain why those exception were exceptions, and why it should be noted, but not attributed to the overall rarity of sky bows (I even defined a sky bow in comparison to other diffraction phenomena.)

That was still met with exceptions to general rarity - based on specific conditions perhaps unknown to the poster(s).

Now, we are at a point of argumentative tugging because the entirety of the point of the rarity of a sky bow is being traded for persons who are trying to find their best exceptions to that. But, these are still exceptions - based on several variable parameters that do not stay the same throughout the year, or at all.

If this was simply a colloquial conversation, then rarity would be subjective. But, given that we can use solar physics to calculate the probability of a rainbow at a particular time, at a particular place, in a prticular season, with respect to global angles - the issue of rarity is quantifiable, and therefore much more objective than anectdotal evidences. I even offered to explicitly show this through the math and physics in another thread - to differentiate between a denotative rarity, and what seems to be the consentual (colloquial) view of rarity.


The irony is that if we are just all talking as laypersons on without any formalized physical reference points, it can certainly be argued that sky bows are not rare (this is where personal experience comes in.) I thought, however, we were making a shift to quantatative analysis of the rarity of rainbows - through actual measurements of parameters.

Before we even get there, there would still have to be an agreement on what quantatative rarity is accepted as... so it might be a good idea to forget it. But, I actually thought quantatative analysis of the physics of rainbows would have been an exciting exercise.


This entire "rarity" issue blew up because I definitively said sky bows are rare (already having a estimated calculation of the probability of a rainbow happening at specific parameters.) But, we can definitely forget about it, as it seems to have derailed from the entire OP.

Well I'm at the bored point. If we both are we can move on to the never speaking of it again?

We may as well as we're half-way there.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Well I'm at the bored point. If we both are we can move on to the never speaking of it again?

We may as well as we're half-way there.

It was never a requisite for anyone who was uninterested to converse the topic with me at all. I was actually more interested in the OP's ideas in relation to the original post and the concept of this rarity. But, I am still open to making a new thread walking through the actual physics of deriving and computing the probability of a sky boy event - at (any) given parameter. That is, if anyone is interested.

Until then, I will wait for the next thread direction from the OP.

 

[I'm_Sorry]

Until then, I will wait for the next thread direction from the OP.

Noah's flood. Entire earth. Animals on the Ark.

The miracle of the skybow rests on it's context.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Noah's flood. Entire earth. Animals on the Ark.

The miracle of the skybow rests on it's context.

It is quite straight foward, isn't it?

A global flood is also straight forward when you incorporate jovian masses with periodic orbits - especially considering the binary jovian companion of our sun not too far outside of our solar system. Gravity potentials, as well as electromagnetic flux, and simple celestial projectiles can cause the global event - which can be shown to have a quantifiable affect on a chosen respective system, or the total system.

Even non-biblical documents about the Exodus in Egypt speak about a Destroyer in the sky that looked like a dragon, cause [the] upheaval in Egypt, the seismicity that "parted" the red sea, and how the "slaves' god magic was more powerful than the Egyptian gods' magic."

In fact, the Exodus plagues was God's direct challenge and assault on the "power" of the 10 principal gods of Egypt - including Pharaoh (god on earth.)

And, Noah built a gargantuan multi-level ocean liner with gopher wood - a wood whose strength is supreme, and whose density is very low (so that the maximum allowable mass per volume of the vessel will maintain equilibrium with the water level to float.)

Even the dimensions of the ship are in the canon - so that one can compute the size of the vessel. In the Apocrypha, Noah had help - including instructions and teachings from Enoch after he was caught up the first time and brought back to Earth to deliver the "books of Enoch" (before he was caught up, again and gone for good.)

But, you don't need the canon to deduce the flood was global. It is my understanding I addition to the water cap falling and the windows of heaven opening to flood the earth, the fountains and spring systems on earth were also part of the global flood. It wasn't just a local event.

We can also determine this was not a local event based on reading the canon. Firstly, we know Cain went East to Nod - and did "his own thing." The world was a global entity, and there were advanced civilizations on the planet. For ten generations, the children of Adam did not stay in one place. We know this isn't true, because at least most all of the children of Adam that were alive during the time right before the flood were scattered within the world - contributing to their choices to become worldly and accept what seems eerily similar to the Mark of the Beast (human genetic manipulation of DNA.)

The entire world for ten generations drove toward degeneracy - and these humans back then lived for several hundreds of years (consequence, I think, of coming off of fresh perfection.) So, a generation was not simply 40, or 70 years. Adam and Eve were 130 before having Seth, and the rest of Adam's children waited similar lengths of time before having their children.

So, this was a 1300 year event buildup (how much have us lowly humans with a literal fraction of that lifetime spread out over the world in any given 1300 year interval of time in history?) In 500 years - with slaves like the other ancient nations - America became a world empire - and the sun does not set on the US like Rome used to boast.

So, I think beings fresh off of perfection with much longer lifetimes (and, I would argue much more intelligence than the "smartest" modern human) would have easily migrated to every corner of the earth - even for the simple purposes of curiosity and exploration. And, therefore in order to get rid of the entities that were no longer human because of their choice to accept transhumanism, the Flood was global.

Now, the interesting thing about the Nephilim, Rephaim, Anakim (JEDI, skywalkers) and Emim existing AFTER the flood is that, IIRC, the bible (or apocrypha) mention that NOAH, and HIS SONS were perfect in their generations. It didn't say anything about the wives. This is a subtle hint - like the subtle hint that the genealogies of Adam begin with Seth, and Cain has no lineage listed beyond him (i.e. Adam is not mentioned in his genealogy as the father of Cain - like it does with Seth.)

As I said, I believe there is more than enough information in the canon to deduce this, but it does help other apocryphal, historical, mythical and mystical texts provide details that could prove to be insightful.

 

[Colter]

 

[Ygrene Imref]

View attachment 191718

Yep. Humans sure are underwhelming when they work solely on their own ego and faith in themselves.

I mean, it wasn't God that lied and said the Titanic was an unsinkable ship, for example...

 

[Colter]

Yep. Humans sure are underwhelming when they work solely on their own ego and faith in themselves.

I mean, it wasn't God that lied and said the Titanic was an unsinkable ship, for example...

Humans don't need more than just a little common sense to see that the flood story is untenable.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Humans don't need more than just a little common sense to see that the flood story is untenable.

Common sense is neither common, nor necessarily sensical.

 

[Colter]

Common sense is neither common, nor necessarily sensical.

How profound, but that still doesn't make the Hebrews genealogical flood devise anything other than silly.