The rainbow

[Dawkinsrocks]

Christians believe that the origin of the rainbow is this

To kill a few people for bad behaviour in a couple of towns god lovingly flooded the entire world killing all the other people and the animals ( it doesn't say in the bible what they had done to deserve this)

He did allow one family to survive by building the biggest wooden ship of all time ( even though they were not naval architects) and capturing and keeping two of every species of animal on the boat for 6 weeks.

Presumably he had to do fertility tests on each animal too

Anyway, after six weeks of the entire world being flooded to a level higher than mountains god decided the earth had had enough flooding so he sent the waters away (although where this huge mass of water went is not reported)

And to let the world I.e. Noah and his family know that he would not flood the world again he sent a rainbow. Presumably before that time water droplets hadn't acted as a prism dividing sunlight into its constituent frequencies like those crazy scientists believe

And if you believe the above you are mentally ill and should seek help

 

[Gabriel_Bell]

Rainbows have a totally credible scientific explanation. If you like rainbows, visit Hawaii. Rainbows nearly every day.

 

[mark francis]

Rainbows have a totally credible scientific explanation. If you like rainbows, visit Hawaii. Rainbows nearly every day.

Everything about God's creation is orderly and scientific.

 

[pjmret]

Everything about God's creation is orderly and scientific.

Miracles are? Water 8nto wine was scientific? Lol

 

[mark francis]

Miracles are? Water 8nto wine was scientific? Lol

Miracles performed by God are called miracles because God does things that are not commonly seen as scientifically possible by lowly humans.

 

[pjmret]

Miracles performed by God are called miracles because God does things that are not commonly seen as scientifically possible by lowly humans.

Miracles by definition are not scientific
Disprov8ng your stupid claim above lol

 

[mark francis]

Miracles by definition are not scientific
Disprov8ng your stupid claim above lol

Of course miracles are not events we should expect to have scientific explanations for, such as the miracle of life's origin on earth or the miracle of the origin of the universe.

 

[pjmret]

Of course miracles are not events we should expect to have scientific explanations for, such as the miracle of life's origin on earth or the miracle of the origin of the universe.

You said the world was scientific above duh
Then you contradict you by saying it isn't lol

 

[Gabriel_Bell]

Miracles are? Water 8nto wine was scientific? Lol

I am thinking that wine was often contained in wineskins. After some time, pigments from the wine will cling to the inside of the wineskin, and if you refill it with water, and let it sit for a while, it will come out wine-colored. I once used a solid colored container for my generic Crystal Light Peach Tea mix, and after using it for a month or so, I refilled t with water, and after two days, t was the color of generic Crystal Light. So perhaps this was not actually a miracle, it just looked like one.

I am reminded of the Third Miracle of St Thomas Assisi. It used to be that to be a saint one had to have three confirmed miracles, but St Thomas had but two. But then someone remembered that once someone had served St. Thomas a dish he disliked, but he said a prayer over t, and it miraculously turned into something he liked, and he ate it. Behold!

 

[Gabriel_Bell]

Everything about God's creation is orderly and scientific.

You sound like someone who has never seen what rats, mice, squirrels, spiders and wasps can do to a car parked in the woods for 40 years. Or someone who has never lived through a hurricane, or seen what a Tsunami can do.

 

[mark francis]

You said the world was scientific above duh
Then you contradict you by saying it isn't lol

The world is not scientific as such. It only has evidence of measurable data that can be recorded and classified as science. The data is also not science itself but has to be interpreted in terms the interpreter attributes to science, whether the interpretations of data are 100% correct or not.

 

[mark francis]

I am thinking that wine was often contained in wineskins. After some time, pigments from the wine will cling to the inside of the wineskin, and if you refill it with water, and let it sit for a while, it will come out wine-colored. I once used a solid colored container for my generic Crystal Light Peach Tea mix, and after using it for a month or so, I refilled t with water, and after two days, t was the color of generic Crystal Light. So perhaps this was not actually a miracle, it just looked like one.

I am reminded of the Third Miracle of St Thomas Assisi. It used to be that to be a saint one had to have three confirmed miracles, but St Thomas had but two. But then someone remembered that once someone had served St. Thomas a dish he disliked, but he said a prayer over t, and it miraculously turned into something he liked, and he ate it. Behold!

You reveal by suggesting a possible alternate explanation for a recorded miracle in the Bible that you are grasping for scenarios to explain the miracle in way that Christians do not agree with.

 

[mark francis]

You sound like someone who has never seen what rats, mice, squirrels, spiders and wasps can do to a car parked in the woods for 40 years. Or someone who has never lived through a hurricane, or seen what a Tsunami can do.

Human and mice DNA have remarkable similarities, but if you were able to observe rats for billions of years you would discover that they never evolve into humans.

 

[Boris Norris]

Human and mice DNA have remarkable similarities, but if you were able to observe rats for billions of years you would discover that they never evolve into humans.

Of course they didn't and that is proven by evolutionists. What they can prove is our closest relatives are primates and it's a fact. You don't have to believe it but it's still a fact.
Do you like bananas?

 

[mark francis]

Of course they didn't and that is proven by evolutionists. What they can prove is our closest relatives are primates and it's a fact. You don't have to believe it but it's still a fact.
Do you like bananas?

Evolutionists have vivid but wildly unscientific views of life's origin on earth.