Rainbows!

[Non sequitur]

If so, what else to say?

No idea, I just found it interesting to hear the logic behind this.

 

[RoadWarrior]

I guess you are a firm believer of the uniformitarianism. I am not.

If you mean understanding that the natural laws of the Universe apply equally through out the Universe, then, yes, I agree with the concept. This is easily seen by observation of distant stars and galaxies. They all have distinctive colors, shapes and sizes all according our understanding of the laws of the Universe.

Some may argue about where those laws originated, but I see no reason to dispute those laws as anything but fact. As for rainbows and the Flood, we know many parts of the Bible are either parable or simply the understandings of the Hebrew desert nomads of the time. Just because they didn't completely understand the Universe doesn't prove or disprove the existence of God. Just because the Bible story of Genesis conflicts with the Big Bang Theory and the facts supporting it doesn't prove God didn't create the Universe. It's a matter of perception.

Philosophically, we can ask "If God didn't want us to misunderstand what we should know, why isn't the Bible simply written in the Heavens or on the Moon?" Does anyone who believes in God doubt God has the power to do this? Therefore, from a faith POV, it only makes sense that God chose this method for a particular reason....such as why we don't do our kid's homework for them.

That said, I have no doubt rainbows existed prior to the Flood. Bible scholars date the Flood occurring around 2300 BCE. Moses was born 900 years later in 1400 BCE. That's a lot of story telling around the campfires before Moses was able to write the first five books of the Bible. Anyone who has played the game of "Gossip" knows stories change with the retelling. It's human.

 

[juvenissun]

If you mean understanding that the natural laws of the Universe apply equally through out the Universe, then, yes, I agree with the concept. This is easily seen by observation of distant stars and galaxies. They all have distinctive colors, shapes and sizes all according our understanding of the laws of the Universe.

Some may argue about where those laws originated, but I see no reason to dispute those laws as anything but fact. As for rainbows and the Flood, we know many parts of the Bible are either parable or simply the understandings of the Hebrew desert nomads of the time. Just because they didn't completely understand the Universe doesn't prove or disprove the existence of God. Just because the Bible story of Genesis conflicts with the Big Bang Theory and the facts supporting it doesn't prove God didn't create the Universe. It's a matter of perception.

Philosophically, we can ask "If God didn't want us to misunderstand what we should know, why isn't the Bible simply written in the Heavens or on the Moon?" Does anyone who believes in God doubt God has the power to do this? Therefore, from a faith POV, it only makes sense that God chose this method for a particular reason....such as why we don't do our kid's homework for them.

That said, I have no doubt rainbows existed prior to the Flood. Bible scholars date the Flood occurring around 2300 BCE. Moses was born 900 years later in 1400 BCE. That's a lot of story telling around the campfires before Moses was able to write the first five books of the Bible. Anyone who has played the game of "Gossip" knows stories change with the retelling. It's human.

Pick up the last argument I made: Do you think dinosaurs saw rainbow too? Even the physics of rainbow was and is the same.

 

[RoadWarrior]

Do you think dinosaurs saw rainbow too? Even the physics of rainbow was and is the same.

Yes, of course. Wasn't I clear on that point? Sorry if I wasn't. Let me rephrase; the physical laws of the Universe, as created upon the moment of the Big Bang, have remained unchanged ever since and remain constant throughout the entire Universe.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes, of course. Wasn't I clear on that point? Sorry if I wasn't. Let me rephrase; the physical laws of the Universe, as created upon the moment of the Big Bang, have remained unchanged ever since and remain constant throughout the entire Universe.

And that was exactly my point. Even the physics of rainbow remains unchanged, but the earth conditions were quite different. There were much more moisture in the air during the dinosaur time. So, a dinosaur might never see a rainbow in its whole life.

You can fight doesn't mean everyone else is a punching bag.

 

[RoadWarrior]

There were much more moisture in the air during the dinosaur time. So, a dinosaur might never see a rainbow in its whole life.

Oooookay. So are you saying Noah's flood took place during the age of the Dinosaurs? I'm not sure I am following why this applies to physics being the same throughout the Universe and time. While I can understand how a higher moisture level might affect rainbows, I'd have to see data on how much would be required to prevent the formation of rainbows. Certainly not enough to have "no rainbows" before the Ark but allowing rainbows after.

 

[juvenissun]

Oooookay. So are you saying Noah's flood took place during the age of the Dinosaurs? I'm not sure I am following why this applies to physics being the same throughout the Universe and time. While I can understand how a higher moisture level might affect rainbows, I'd have to see data on how much would be required to prevent the formation of rainbows. Certainly not enough to have "no rainbows" before the Ark but allowing rainbows after.

I think it would not be so much to "prevent" the light refraction and dispersion, but is closely related to light absorption. Have you seen a hazy day before? I think the haze (by vapor) would absorb all the dispersed light from a rainbow.

How much haze would that take? I don't know. If you know the physics of rainbow, then you should be able to figure it out pretty easily.

 

[RoadWarrior]

In my job, I've seen many hazy days and lots of rainbows, double rainbows, "glories" and other refracted light phenomenon. The conditions to refract light don't have to be perfect since I've seen them under a wide variety of conditions, but they do require certain conditions such as the Sun behind you and the presence of water droplets or moisture to refract the light.

 

[juvenissun]

In my job, I've seen many hazy days and lots of rainbows, double rainbows, "glories" and other refracted light phenomenon. The conditions to refract light don't have to be perfect since I've seen them under a wide variety of conditions, but they do require certain conditions such as the Sun behind you and the presence of water droplets or moisture to refract the light.

I understand that. However, there is one more limitation: The position of observation is specified. It has to be a rainbow in the high sky and observed from the ground. In a hazy and humid day, I don't think the dispersed light could reach to the ground.

 

[RoadWarrior]

Humidity probably wouldn't be a factor, but a high amount of haze would disperse the light all by itself. I don't recall seeing many rainbows in Los Angeles during the 1980s.

 

[juvenissun]

Humidity probably wouldn't be a factor, but a high amount of haze would disperse the light all by itself. I don't recall seeing many rainbows in Los Angeles during the 1980s.

That is true. But it probably won't apply to Noah's Flood. At that time, it is not likely to have any dust pollution. The most likely situation is a high amount of moisture in the air.

I would say the vapor particles would have at least the equal effect to disperse the light, if not a better effect. Dust particle only disperses. But vapor (water) particles absorbs and disperses.

 

[Buy Bologna]

That is true. But it probably won't apply to Noah's Flood. At that time, it is not likely to have any dust pollution. The most likely situation is a high amount of moisture in the air.

I would say the vapor particles would have at least the equal effect to disperse the light, if not a better effect. Dust particle only disperses. But vapor (water) particles absorbs and disperses.

juvenissun, your a classic example of stretching the bible to make sense with science.

Bottom line, to NOT see a rainbow would would mean that our eyes couldn't detect the narrow spectrum of light otherwise called ROY G BIV. In other words, we couldn't see in color. Did we not see in color before Noah?

We are seeing light thousands, millions of light years away. Yet they contain this spectrum. We know rainbows existed millions of years ago. Simply because we see the stars. Which contain Roy G Biv.

 

[juvenissun]

juvenissun, your a classic example of stretching the bible to make sense with science.

Bottom line, to NOT see a rainbow would would mean that our eyes couldn't detect the narrow spectrum of light otherwise called ROY G BIV. In other words, we couldn't see in color. Did we not see in color before Noah?

We are seeing light thousands, millions of light years away. Yet they contain this spectrum. We know rainbows existed millions of years ago. Simply because we see the stars. Which contain Roy G Biv.

The basic argument is: even rainbow exists, but if we can not see it, then it does not exist to us. This is simply logic. No stretch on anything.

 

[RoadWarrior]

"If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound?"

Technically, to make a "sound" something has to receive the sound, but does the fall of the tree create pressure waves on the atmosphere which creatures or instruments capable of sensing those waves able to receive? Yes, it does regardless if any of those creatures or instruments are there to detect it.

As for rainbows, God created the Universe as it is including the physics driving it. The parable of the rainbow is just a teaching tool.

 

[juvenissun]

"If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound?"

Technically, to make a "sound" something has to receive the sound, but does the fall of the tree create pressure waves on the atmosphere which creatures or instruments capable of sensing those waves able to receive? Yes, it does regardless if any of those creatures or instruments are there to detect it.

As for rainbows, God created the Universe as it is including the physics driving it. The parable of the rainbow is just a teaching tool.

It is a teaching tool all right. But I don't know if it is a parable. If I told my grandson that there are trees fall in the woods, it is not a parable to him even he has never seen it before.

 

[Buy Bologna]

The basic argument is: even rainbow exists, but if we can not see it, then it does not exist to us. This is simply logic. No stretch on anything.

Waitasec, you telling me you have to see something to believe it?

 

[juvenissun]

Waitasec, you telling me you have to see something to believe it?

If I never know, never read, and have never seen and can't never reason, then yes, I need at least somebody to tell me or to show me. This could be the condition to people before they ever see a rainbow.

With that said, Yes, YOU have to see God to believe Him. The worse thing is, even you see Him, you may still not believe in Him. This entirely possible and is very very likely. Because you can reason. You see a rainbow, yet you don't believe what God says about it, because you can reason.

 

[RoadWarrior]

Waitasec, you telling me you have to see something to believe it?

It's that the Atheist paradigm? "I only accept what is in front of my face"?

 

[Buy Bologna]

If I never know, never read, and have never seen and can't never reason, then yes, I need at least somebody to tell me or to show me. This could be the condition to people before they ever see a rainbow.

With that said, Yes, YOU have to see God to believe Him. The worse thing is, even you see Him, you may still not believe in Him. This entirely possible and is very very likely. Because you can reason. You see a rainbow, yet you don't believe what God says about it, because you can reason.

At best your argument is that I can see his creation. But not god himself.

If I see a painting, Am I looking at the Artist or the painting? I see the painting.

Now let me give you the benefit of the doubt and lets say there is a god. Now the problem is which god to worship. What does he want me to do?

It is my reason that doesn't allow me to believe the nonsense in any holy book thus far.

It's that the Atheist paradigm? "I only accept what is in front of my face"?

No.

As a matter of fact, the rainbow is a good illustration. Science and people of logic know, for example, that the light waves are mostly unseen. Right before RED in the rainbow is (obviously) Infrared. InfraRED is just beyond our ability to see. And on the other side of the spectrum, Violet in which ultraviolet light waves go on which go outside our eyes ability to see.

The wavelengths range anywhere to comic gamma to radio.

 

[juvenissun]

At best your argument is that I can see his creation. But not god himself.

If I see a painting, Am I looking at the Artist or the painting? I see the painting.

Now let me give you the benefit of the doubt and lets say there is a god. Now the problem is which god to worship. What does he want me to do?

It is my reason that doesn't allow me to believe the nonsense in any holy book thus far.

No.

As a matter of fact, the rainbow is a good illustration. Science and people of logic know, for example, that the light waves are mostly unseen. Right before RED in the rainbow is (obviously) Infrared. InfraRED is just beyond our ability to see. And on the other side of the spectrum, Violet in which ultraviolet light waves go on which go outside our eyes ability to see.

The wavelengths range anywhere to comic gamma to radio.

I guess I better surrender. You win.