Scientific Proof of the Great Flood
Ray Martinez
Genesis 9:12
"And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me
and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all
generations to come: 13 I have set my RAINBOW in the clouds, and it
will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever
I bring clouds over the earth and the RAINBOW appears in the clouds, 15
I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures
of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy
all life. 16 Whenever the RAINBOW appears in the clouds, I will see it
and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living
creatures of every kind on the earth."
There is no reason the rainbow should appear, except that it was
created by God as a sign that He will not destroy by flood ever again.
I always said the scientific evidence for the Flood was spectacular and
could be OBSERVED by anyone.
Ray Martinez
Wakboth
Ray Martinez wrote:
> There is no reason the rainbow should appear, except that it was
> created by God as a sign that He will not destroy by flood ever again.
You have never placed a prism in front of light, have you?
-- Wakboth
zawa...@yahoo.com
recreate one on a sunny day with a garden hose or a prism.
Are you going to have a problem with optics now ? Are we all
"Newtonists" now ?
Joe Cummings
wrote:
Ray,
You seem to be having a little trouble with your thinking.
But never mind, I'm here to help you.
What I want you to do is to take your garden hose and spray it
around you until you see a little rainbow. Now, that wasn't very
difficult, was it? Having done that, and having re-read the Bible
story about the rainbow, do you think:
1) Almighty God is trying to tell YOU something?
2) It's a perfectly natural phenomenon?
Rush out and try the experiment, and come back and tell us
what you think.
Have fun,
Joe Cummings
Ray Martinez
Genesis is saying that the natural phenomenon was created by God as a
sign that He would not destroy by flood ever again.
Nobody can prove that it did not rain prior to 3145 BC.
Rainbow = proof of Great Flood = deny = not loyal to evidence.
Ray Martinez
Elf M. Sternberg
> Genesis is saying that the natural phenomenon was created by God as a
> sign that He would not destroy by flood ever again. Nobody can prove
> that it did not rain prior to 3145 BC.
If it did rain prior to 3145 BC and there were no rainbows, then
the entirety of physics was different in Noah's time. There are no
lessons to be learned from creatures so far removed from us that the
light, heat, and energy they experienced was utterly unlike our own.
Elf
Staffan S
<zawa...@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:1125601825.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Great. So now we can add another area of science that will be abandoned if
the creationists gain control. Thank you, Ray. You have just given
everyone with glasses a reason to fight creationism.
Staffan S
Augray
> It appears in the sky after it rains.
>
> Genesis 9:12
>
> "And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me
> and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all
> generations to come: 13 I have set my RAINBOW in the clouds, and it
> will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever
> I bring clouds over the earth and the RAINBOW appears in the clouds, 15
> I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures
> of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy
> all life. 16 Whenever the RAINBOW appears in the clouds, I will see it
> and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living
> creatures of every kind on the earth."
>
> There is no reason the rainbow should appear, except that it was
> created by God as a sign that He will not destroy by flood ever again.
Using the same logic, one could argue that the existence of the rainbow
proves that Asgard exists.
Augray
wrote in news:<1125602801....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
> I know all about a hose and prisms.
>
> Genesis is saying that the natural phenomenon was created by God as a
> sign that He would not destroy by flood ever again.
Vertebrate eyes require the same physical laws to function as those that
result in the rainbow. If the laws of physics were different in
antediluvian times, were eyes different as well?
Mark VandeWettering
> It appears in the sky after it rains.
>
> Genesis 9:12
>
> "And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me
> and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all
> generations to come: 13 I have set my RAINBOW in the clouds, and it
> will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever
> I bring clouds over the earth and the RAINBOW appears in the clouds, 15
> I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures
> of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy
> all life. 16 Whenever the RAINBOW appears in the clouds, I will see it
> and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living
> creatures of every kind on the earth."
>
> There is no reason the rainbow should appear, except that it was
> created by God as a sign that He will not destroy by flood ever again.
Well, that and the laws of refraction.
Augray
wrote in news:<1125600013.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Using the same logic, one could argue that the existence of the rainbow
proves that Asgard exists.
> Ray Martinez
The Last Conformist
If I hadn't been familiar with your postings, I'd sworn this was a
troll.
Congratulations on reaching a new level of kookhood.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> There is no reason the rainbow should appear, except that it was
> created by God as a sign that He will not destroy by flood ever again.
Actually a rainbow is the effect of sunlight shinin through small
droplets of water at the correct angle. If there was rain before the
flood then there were almost certainly rainbows.
>
> I always said the scientific evidence for the Flood was spectacular and
> could be OBSERVED by anyone.
Not a drop of evidence for a flood that covered the entire earth. There
is not enough water on earth plus the atmosphere to rain out a sea that
could cover Mt. Everest plush fifteen cubits.
Bob Kolker
unrestra...@hotmail.com
Ray, if it did not rain before 3145 BC, what happened to the water that
flowed into the oceans? Did it not evaporate? If not, why - were the
laws of physics so profoundly different then? How did people cool off
when they got hot - sweating cools by evaopration; if it didn't
evaporate our ancestors would have died by overheating - as would dogs
and horses. If they *did sweat, why didn't the ocean evaporate? If it
didn't rain, where did the water come from in rivers, brooks, and
lakes?
"Look Noah - the lake is no deeper than in my grandfather's time - it's
a miracle!"
"Look, it's not raining again *today! It's another miracle!"
"I didn't die of heat stroke - again! Praise be!"
"Look at that dog - he pants, but it doesn't do anything. The Lord
works in mysterious ways!"
You are saying (among other things) that meterology is based on false
science. You must conclude that every rain shower is inexplicable and a
special miraculous act. So... every weatherman who says it must rain
given certain conditions, is an atheist.
As is every biologist. And let us not forget physicists. Um,
historians, anthropologists, archaeologists, and linguists. Geologists
and radiochemists. All stupid, all ignorant, because they don't have
the humility to see what is obvious to you - you, and Dr. Scott - in
the bible.
Kermit
Ken Shackleton
Ray Martinez wrote:
> It appears in the sky after it rains.
>
> Genesis 9:12
>
> "And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me
> and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all
> generations to come: 13 I have set my RAINBOW in the clouds, and it
> will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever
> I bring clouds over the earth and the RAINBOW appears in the clouds, 15
> I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures
> of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy
> all life. 16 Whenever the RAINBOW appears in the clouds, I will see it
> and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living
> creatures of every kind on the earth."
>
> There is no reason the rainbow should appear, except that it was
> created by God as a sign that He will not destroy by flood ever again.
The rainbow appears due to the laws of optics. Stand with your back to
the sun on a bright sunny day and spray a hose in the air on a list
setting....the rainbow you see is due to the laws of optics, reflection
and refraction.
>
> I always said the scientific evidence for the Flood was spectacular and
> could be OBSERVED by anyone.
How is a rainbow evidence of a flood? All the bible is giving you is a
quaint and mythological story used by ancients to explain what to them
was otherwise unexplainable.
>
>
>
> Ray Martinez
VoiceOfReason
Ray Martinez wrote:
<...>
> There is no reason the rainbow should appear, except that it was
> created by God as a sign that He will not destroy by flood ever again.
There is no "reason" the rainbow should appear, except for what Newton
discovered a few centuries ago about optics, prisms, etc.
> I always said the scientific evidence for the Flood was spectacular and
> could be OBSERVED by anyone.
That's fine for teaching kids at pre-school, but it's hardly
"scientific evidence" for the Flood.
There are a number of equally fascinating rainbow myths from many
cultures, each one of them a beautiful story in its own right:
----------------------------------
In Hawaii, Polynesia, Austria, Japan and among Native American Tribes
the rainbow is the path souls take on their way to heaven. The Russians
call the rainbow the "Gate to Heaven." In New Zealand dead chiefs
travel up the rainbow to their new home. Other myths say the bow is a
stream of water that souls in heaven drink from. The Zulu of South
Africa call the rainbow the Queens Arch because it is one of the frames
that form the house of the Queen of Heaven.
In Swabia and Bavaria the saints pass by the rainbow when traveling
from heaven to earth. While in Polynesia it is the actual path taken by
the Gods themselves. In Norway, a giant named Heimdal stands on a
rainbow bridge, connecting heaven and earth. Heimdal's hearing is so
keen that he is able to hear the sound grass makes as it grows. He
guards Asgard, the home of the Norwegian Gods. The Valkyrie Maidens
flying through the air on winged chariots carry dying Norse heroes over
the bridge to Valhalla, a state of peace and bliss existing in Asgard.
An old Norse story calls the rainbow Asbru, the bridge of the Gods.
The Samoyeds, a Siberian Mongolian people, and the Cherokee People say
it is the hem of the Sun God's coat. The fact that Native Americans and
Mongolian peoples share the same myth is perhaps one more piece of
evidence that there was a land bridge between America and Asia and the
peoples on both sides of the pacific do in fact share a common
heritage. The ancient Welch believed it to be a Goddess's Chair. While
in Croatia it is God's seat. In Mozambique the rainbow is believed to
be the arm of a conquering God. In Africa the rainbow encircles the
earth and is a guardian to heaven.
A Japanese myth tells of the first man Isanagi and the first woman
Isanami who stood on the floating bridge of heaven while creating the
island of Onogoro. They then walked down to earth on this rainbow
bridge, called Niji. They watched the animals and learned how to make
love. They watched the birds and learned to eat with chopsticks.
In myths of India the Goddess Indra not only carries a thunderbolt like
the Greek God Zeus but she also carries a rainbow, known as Indra's bow
or weapon. A part of the Indian creation myth says the Gods created an
ocean of milk from which all living forms emerged. Airavata, a sacred
milk white elephant, whose name means rainbow, was one of the first
creatures born from the milk.
The Navajo people believe Gods travel on the rainbow because it moves
so rapidly. They know if you run toward the end of a rainbow it moves
away before you get there, no matter how fast you travel. They also
portray the rainbow as the bridge between the human world and the other
side. They say the rainbow carries heroes between heaven and earth and
there is a waterway where the rainbow bridges the earth. The Navajo's
also say the rainbow is a Goddess who appears during ritual chanting to
heal the sick.
VoiceOfReason
Glasses, telescopes, microscopes and prisms are all objects of Satanic
intrigue, you Newtownian scientism-babbling naturalism-worshipping
heretic.
:-)
... and your little dog, too!
VoiceOfReason
There's an echo in this newsgroup...
monkeysuncle
may have once observed one, or been told of one.
That the author (whoever he/she was) makes note of this phenomenon has
no meaning except that optics works the same today as it did 2500-3000
YA when that passage was written.
It has no other meaning, and is proof of nothing.
-Z
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125600013.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> It appears in the sky after it rains.
What, humidity?
>
> Genesis 9:12
>
> "And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me
> and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all
> generations to come: 13 I have set my RAINBOW in the clouds, and it
> will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever
> I bring clouds over the earth and the RAINBOW appears in the clouds, 15
> I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures
> of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy
> all life. 16 Whenever the RAINBOW appears in the clouds, I will see it
> and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living
> creatures of every kind on the earth."
>
> There is no reason the rainbow should appear, except that it was
> created by God as a sign that He will not destroy by flood ever again.
A rainbow is the result of light refracted by raindrops. It's simple
optics. .
>
> I always said the scientific evidence for the Flood was spectacular and
> could be OBSERVED by anyone.
Ray, this is weak, even for you.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>I know all about a hose and prisms.
But not how light refracts, apparently.
>
> Genesis is saying that the natural phenomenon was created by God as a
> sign that He would not destroy by flood ever again.
Tell that to the people in New Orleans.
>
> Nobody can prove that it did not rain prior to 3145 BC.
We have raindrop impressions from rocks much older than that.
>
> Rainbow = proof of Great Flood = deny = not loyal to evidence.
The Rainbow is no more proof of the "Great Flood" than it's proof that
Leprechauns exist.
DJT
Ken Rode
Ray, could you expand on this for my benefit? I've read the passage
above, and I don't see where it says that God created the rainbow
specifically for this purpose. In verse 13, he sets his rainbow in the
clouds. In verses 14 & 16, it seems that the rainbow is spontaneously
appearing. (This seems especially strong in v. 16.) So it doesn't seem
to me that God created the rainbow for the purpose that you have
indicated, but rather that he uses it as a reminder _to himself_.
We do understand very specifically how rainbows are formed, and there is
nothing supernatural (the standard definition of that word applies, and
not Dr. Scott's meaning) about it. I will refer you to the following URLs:
Rainbows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow
Atmospheric optics: http://www.sundog.clara.co.uk/atoptics/phenom.htm
Artificial rainbow:
http://www.afoundation.com/independent/cammelllairds/marcquinn.html
As you can see from the URLs above, rainbows are by no means the only
type of atmospheric optical effects that are seen in nature. What do you
suppose that God might be remembering whenever he sees a sun dog? How do
you suppose that his memory of his covenant might be altered by a
reflection bow instead of a normal rainbow? Or by a glory?
In the last URL above, you can see an artificially induced rainbow. Are
we then able to force God to remember about his covenant?
AC
Okay, that's it. Ray's gotta be some sophisticated Loki.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Craig T
sign that He would not destroy by flood ever again."
The Intelligent Designer knew he would destroy the world when he
created the physical properties of water. He knew that man would fall
when he created an entire ecosystem based on pain and suffering and
made half of all living organisms parasites. He created the human
pelvis to punish Eve when she got around to eating the apple. Jeffrey
M. Schwartz of the UCLA School of Medicine understands how much
micromanagement went into the initial design of the universe. He wants
to do ID research on NASCAR drivers. To suggest Tony Stewart's ability
to drive stock cars "is a result of nothing more than random processes
coming together in a machine-like way is not a coherent explanation,"
says Swchwartz. The Intelligent designer gave primates a thirst for
alcohol and prohibition reformers a hatred of it so that bootleggers
would learn to race stock cars. How's that for long range planning?
But if the Intelligent Designer plans ahead, didn't he know that the
rainbow would also be the symbol of the gay/lesbian movement?
Rainbow = proof of Gay Acceptance = deny = homophobes hate God.
Greywolf
And who was the on-scene reporter(s) and eyewitness for all this? Was it
just Noah
and his sons? (Gen. 9:8 seems to exclude the women.) And did 'God' actually
talk to
all the animals
left alive after the holocaust and include them in his 'covenant'? (see
vs.10) And did
Noah (or any of his sons) leave a transcript of this conversation God had
with them
for Moses to record for posterity. (He 'wrote' Genesis, you know.) And a
RAINBOW!
Wooooo, that's some pretty scientific stuff for the creator of the universe
to impress
modern day scientists with. (They're still some questions regarding the
whole 'four
corners of the earth' passage.[Is. 11:12] But I guess one can let the
religionists slide on
this one. They're waaay to many more problems with the bible to spend time
mulling
over, than the insignificance of *this* passage.
Greywolf
John S. Wilkins
by water before the Flood. Hence the physical properties of water were
different before the Flood. Hence, all of the problems we have with the Flood,
such as the complete lack of geological evidence for it, can be explained by
these different properties. Water was approximately the density of carbon
dioxide, and *that's* why there's no evidence. It also explains where the
"waters" came from - the air - and where they went - the air.
Isn't creation science a wonderful thing?
--
John S. Wilkins : evolvethought.blogspot.com : Biohumanities, Uni Queensland
"In the language that we speak in England, and in the languages of the Greeks,
there are identical verbal roots, or elements, entering into the composition
of words. That fact remains unintelligible so long as we suppose English and
Greek to be independently created tongues; but when it is shown that both
languages are descended from one original, we give an explanation of that
resemblance." T. H. Huxley _Darwiniana_ 458.
rja.ca...@excite.com
> On 1 Sep 2005 11:40:13 -0700, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in news:<1125600013.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > It appears in the sky after it rains.
> >
> > Genesis 9:12
> >
> > "And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me
> > and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all
> > generations to come: 13 I have set my RAINBOW in the clouds, and it
> > will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever
> > I bring clouds over the earth and the RAINBOW appears in the clouds, 15
> > I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures
> > of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy
> > all life. 16 Whenever the RAINBOW appears in the clouds, I will see it
> > and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living
> > creatures of every kind on the earth."
> >
> > There is no reason the rainbow should appear, except that it was
> > created by God as a sign that He will not destroy by flood ever again.
>
> Using the same logic, one could argue that the existence of the rainbow
> proves that Asgard exists.
As well as The Marvelous Land of Oz.
What kind of gardener is Adam if he doesn't own a hosepipe? And even
so, couldn't he, uh, produce a rainbow without one? After all, he's
made in the image of God.
Bob Pease
"Wakboth" <Wakbo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125601795.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > There is no reason the rainbow should appear, except that it was
> > created by God as a sign that He will not destroy by flood ever again.
>
>
> -- Wakboth
That is because God is sending you a reminder of the Post-Flood Covenant via
the prism (or garden hose) as a Talisman .
RJ Pease
Grasshopper
> It appears in the sky after it rains.
>
> Genesis 9:12
>
> "And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me
> and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all
> generations to come: 13 I have set my RAINBOW in the clouds, and it
> will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever
> I bring clouds over the earth and the RAINBOW appears in the clouds, 15
> I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures
> of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy
> all life. 16 Whenever the RAINBOW appears in the clouds, I will see it
> and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living
> creatures of every kind on the earth."
>
> There is no reason the rainbow should appear, except that it was
> created by God as a sign that He will not destroy by flood ever again.
>
> I always said the scientific evidence for the Flood was spectacular and
> could be OBSERVED by anyone.
>
>
>
> Ray Martinez
I nominate you, Ray, for the Nobel Peace Prize for Science, for this gem.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Just because it never happened doesn't mean it isn't true.
Bobby D. Bryant
> It appears in the sky after it rains.
>
> Genesis 9:12
>
> "And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between
> me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all
> generations to come: 13 I have set my RAINBOW in the clouds, and it
> will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14
> Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the RAINBOW appears in
> the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and
> all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters
> become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the RAINBOW appears
> in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant
> between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth."
>
> There is no reason the rainbow should appear, except that it was
> created by God as a sign that He will not destroy by flood ever again.
Skipped fourth grade science class, did you?
> I always said the scientific evidence for the Flood was spectacular
> and could be OBSERVED by anyone.
You always say a lot of stupid stuff.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Bob Pease
"Elf M. Sternberg" <e...@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:87y86g8...@drizzle.com...
Indeed!!!
The Laws of Physics ( as we know them ) were not put in effect until after
the FLOOD!!!
This was an actual statement offered as a resolution in a National Christian
Science Teacher's convention sometime in the mid '70's
I am unable to recreate chapter and verse, but i remember it distinctly.
RJ P
Robert J. Kolker
> made half of all living organisms parasites. He created the human
> pelvis to punish Eve when she got around to eating the apple.
It was a fig or a date.
Bob Kolker
Grasshopper
wrote:
> On 1 Sep 2005 11:40:13 -0700, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> It appears in the sky after it rains.
>>
>> Genesis 9:12
>>
>> "And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me
>> and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all
>> generations to come: 13 I have set my RAINBOW in the clouds, and it
>> will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever
>> I bring clouds over the earth and the RAINBOW appears in the clouds, 15
>> I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures
>> of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy
>> all life. 16 Whenever the RAINBOW appears in the clouds, I will see it
>> and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living
>> creatures of every kind on the earth."
>>
>> There is no reason the rainbow should appear, except that it was
>> created by God as a sign that He will not destroy by flood ever again.
>>
>> I always said the scientific evidence for the Flood was spectacular and
>> could be OBSERVED by anyone.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ray Martinez
>
> Ray,
>
> You seem to be having a little trouble with your thinking.
> But never mind, I'm here to help you.
>
> What I want you to do is to take your garden hose and spray it
> around you until you see a little rainbow. Now, that wasn't very
> difficult, was it? Having done that, and having re-read the Bible
> story about the rainbow, do you think:
>
Try it on a sunny day, and keep the sun behind you.
> 1) Almighty God is trying to tell YOU something?
>
> 2) It's a perfectly natural phenomenon?
>
> Rush out and try the experiment, and come back and tell us
> what you think.
>
> Have fun,
>
> Joe Cummings
Bob Pease
"Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3np867F...@individual.net...
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> >
> > There is no reason the rainbow should appear, except that it was
> > created by God as a sign that He will not destroy by flood ever again.
>
> Actually a rainbow is the effect of sunlight shinin through small
> droplets of water at the correct angle. If there was rain before the
> flood then there were almost certainly rainbows.
Of course.
But the Lord made them invisible because HE was saving them for after the
Flood.
RJ P
Bobby D. Bryant
I love these "see who can pound Ray into the ground with the fewest
strokes" threads.
AC
Bobby D. Bryant <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Sep 2005, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> It appears in the sky after it rains.
>>
>> Genesis 9:12
>>
>> "And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between
>> me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all
>> generations to come: 13 I have set my RAINBOW in the clouds, and it
>> will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14
>> Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the RAINBOW appears in
>> the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and
>> all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters
>> become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the RAINBOW appears
>> in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant
>> between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth."
>>
>> There is no reason the rainbow should appear, except that it was
>> created by God as a sign that He will not destroy by flood ever again.
>
> Skipped fourth grade science class, did you?
Um, more like skipped fourth grade.
>
>
>> I always said the scientific evidence for the Flood was spectacular
>> and could be OBSERVED by anyone.
>
> You always say a lot of stupid stuff.
I don't buy it anymore. This is too fucking stupid even for the likes of
Nowhere Man or McNameless. Ray has got to be a Loki troll. Admittedly he's
a dedicated one, but otherwise he's severely mentally stunted, which doesn't
jive with the fact that he can type complete sentences and at least
partially produce coherent thoughts.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Craig T
be cast out of the garden.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7927 reports on a parasitic
worm that causes grasshoppers to seek out water and achieve total
immersion. Can this be linked to baptism? Soon we'll have a whole
semester of ID ecology lessons planned out here.
Dave
> It appears in the sky after it rains.
>
> Genesis 9:12
>
> "And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making
> between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant
> for all generations to come: 13 I have set my RAINBOW in the
Yeah, after exterminating virtually everyone [He] then says [He] needs
to make rainbows to commemorate the extermination.
Augray
wrote in news:<1125610909.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
I think the robomoderator withheld my first one for some reason, so I
sent it again. But hey, if it helps spread the word about Asgard...
David Jensen
>It appears in the sky after it rains.
>
>Genesis 9:12
>
>"And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me
>and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all
>generations to come: 13 I have set my RAINBOW in the clouds, and it
>will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever
>I bring clouds over the earth and the RAINBOW appears in the clouds, 15
>I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures
>of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy
>all life. 16 Whenever the RAINBOW appears in the clouds, I will see it
>and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living
>creatures of every kind on the earth."
>
>There is no reason the rainbow should appear, except that it was
>created by God as a sign that He will not destroy by flood ever again.
Your profound ignorance of optics is noted.
If there were a god, he would destroy you for making him such a
laughingstock.
>I always said the scientific evidence for the Flood was spectacular and
>could be OBSERVED by anyone.
>
>
>
>Ray Martinez
David Jensen
>I know all about a hose and prisms.
>
>sign that He would not destroy by flood ever again.
He didn't do it the first time.
>Nobody can prove that it did not rain prior to 3145 BC.
That's because it did rain.
>Rainbow = proof of Great Flood = deny = not loyal to evidence.
You reject evidence. Apparently your hubris doesn't allow you to look at
God's universe.
shane
> It appears in the sky after it rains.
>
> Genesis 9:12
>
> "And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me
> and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all
> generations to come: 13 I have set my RAINBOW in the clouds, and it
> will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever
> I bring clouds over the earth and the RAINBOW appears in the clouds, 15
> I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures
> of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy
> all life.
What does it mean by saying that all life was destroyed - it wasn't,
Noah and his family survived, the animals in the ark survived, plants
survived. This is a false covenant, if Ray really wants to pin his
beliefs on it, all it shows is that the writer of the story has lied
somewhere in the telling of it, as parts of the story are mutually
exclusive.
> 16 Whenever the RAINBOW appears in the clouds, I will see it
> and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living
> creatures of every kind on the earth."
>
> There is no reason the rainbow should appear, except that it was
> created by God as a sign that He will not destroy by flood ever again.
Ray is here guilty of putting his own interpretation on the bible, and
of misunderstanding science. As I pointed out above, the covenant is
invalid in the first place as it comemorates something that did not
happen, as all life was not destroyed, and floods have killed millions
in the ensuing millenia, so is Ray saying that his god is not powerful
enough to stop them?
>
> I always said the scientific evidence for the Flood was spectacular and
> could be OBSERVED by anyone.
>
I will take that as an open admission that Ray has lied, no surprise there.
>
>
> Ray Martinez
>
Shane
The truth will set you free.
Abner Mintz
> I always said the scientific evidence for the Flood was spectacular and
> could be OBSERVED by anyone.
Thank you, Ray. I just forwarded your post to my wife
- it brightened up my day, and I'm sure it will amuse her
as well.
Bobby D. Bryant
Hope you didn't forget to send the "put down your drink" message first.
Ray Martinez
Augray wrote:
> On 1 Sep 2005 12:26:41 -0700, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in news:<1125602801....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > I know all about a hose and prisms.
> >
> > sign that He would not destroy by flood ever again.
>
> Vertebrate eyes require the same physical laws to function as those that
> result in the rainbow. If the laws of physics were different in
> antediluvian times, were eyes different as well?
>
>
> > Nobody can prove that it did not rain prior to 3145 BC.
> >
> >
> >
Your post assumes uniformitarian nonsense that the present is the key
to the past.
The Old world was very different.
If you were standing on a bridge looking down at the water beneath,
prior to 3145 BC if you looked up you would see the same thing - a
water canopy.
This canopy emitted a continual mist that watered the ground and
prevented the harmful rays of the sun from getting through. This is one
fact which explains the length of life back then.
Many persons have pointed out that it could never rain hard enough over
40 days to flood the earth - true.
The Bible says two things happened: the canopy burst AND waters of the
deep gushed from beneath.
Atmospheric conditions such as these, and the total evasion by
Darwinists, account for the absurdity of the Miller-Urey experiment.
The best evidence of the Flood is the worldwide accounts and their
common denominators. Darwinian evasions of this database of evidence
show what liars they are and how they turn a blind eye to evidence.
Ray Martinez
Bobby D. Bryant
>
> Augray wrote:
>> On 1 Sep 2005 12:26:41 -0700, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote in news:<1125602801....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> > I know all about a hose and prisms.
>> >
>> > Genesis is saying that the natural phenomenon was created by God as a
>> > sign that He would not destroy by flood ever again.
>>
>> Vertebrate eyes require the same physical laws to function as those that
>> result in the rainbow. If the laws of physics were different in
>> antediluvian times, were eyes different as well?
>>
>>
>> > Nobody can prove that it did not rain prior to 3145 BC.
>> >
>> > Rainbow = proof of Great Flood = deny = not loyal to evidence.
>
> Your post assumes uniformitarian nonsense that the present is the key
> to the past.
It assumes no such thing. He just wants to know whether refraction is
a post-flood phenomenon, and if so, how eye lenses worked before then.
> The Old world was very different.
>
> If you were standing on a bridge looking down at the water beneath,
> prior to 3145 BC if you looked up you would see the same thing - a
> water canopy.
>
> This canopy emitted a continual mist that watered the ground and
> prevented the harmful rays of the sun from getting through. This is one
> fact which explains the length of life back then.
>
> Many persons have pointed out that it could never rain hard enough over
> 40 days to flood the earth - true.
>
> The Bible says two things happened: the canopy burst AND waters of the
> deep gushed from beneath.
So... how much water gushed up from beneath, and where is it now?
> Atmospheric conditions such as these, and the total evasion by
> Darwinists, account for the absurdity of the Miller-Urey experiment.
>
> The best evidence of the Flood is the worldwide accounts and their
> common denominators.
What about the points where the accounts differ?
Keep the evidence you like, throw out the rest?
> Darwinian evasions of this database of evidence show what liars they
> are and how they turn a blind eye to evidence.
You should actually be blaming geologists. They had already
recognized that no such flood ever happened by 1820.
shane
> Augray wrote:
>
>>On 1 Sep 2005 12:26:41 -0700, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote in news:<1125602801....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>
>>>I know all about a hose and prisms.
>>>
>>>Genesis is saying that the natural phenomenon was created by God as a
>>>sign that He would not destroy by flood ever again.
>>
>>Vertebrate eyes require the same physical laws to function as those that
>>result in the rainbow. If the laws of physics were different in
>>antediluvian times, were eyes different as well?
>>
>>
>>
>>>Nobody can prove that it did not rain prior to 3145 BC.
>>>
>>>Rainbow = proof of Great Flood = deny = not loyal to evidence.
>>>
>>>
>>>Ray Martinez
>
>
> Your post assumes uniformitarian nonsense that the present is the key
> to the past.
Ask Ray if he will swallow a cyanide pill. A belief that it will kill
him is just unformitarian nonsense based on all previous takers being
killed, by it.
>
> The Old world was very different.
Don't ever expect Ray to provide any evidence for this assertion?
>
> If you were standing on a bridge looking down at the water beneath,
> prior to 3145 BC if you looked up you would see the same thing - a
> water canopy.
One wonders how Ray knows this. He wasn't there, and no eye witness
accounts survive.
>
> This canopy emitted a continual mist that watered the ground and
> prevented the harmful rays of the sun from getting through. This is one
> fact which explains the length of life back then.
Ray has apparently never been diving.
>
> Many persons have pointed out that it could never rain hard enough over
> 40 days to flood the earth - true.
>
> The Bible says two things happened: the canopy burst AND waters of the
> deep gushed from beneath.
No, it says the windows of heaven were opened. No mention of the canopy
being damaged. It also says that at the end of the 40 days the windows
were stopped (closed) and the rain was restrained, not that the canopy
was empty. I am surprised that Ray is less than honest in this regard,
as he is talking of the book he considers inerrant, so why does he
misrepresent it?
>
> Atmospheric conditions such as these, and the total evasion by
> Darwinists, account for the absurdity of the Miller-Urey experiment.
There is only one person evading evidence in this thread and we all know
who that is.
>
> The best evidence of the Flood is the worldwide accounts and their
> common denominators.
One would have thought that the best evidence of the flood would be the
physical signs such a cataclysmic event would have left behind. But
perhaps Ray knows the evidence better that I. It seems he is openly
admitting that the flood left no physical evidence.
> Darwinian evasions of this database of evidence
> show what liars they are and how they turn a blind eye to evidence.
>
What it really shows is that they actually examine the evidence. The
only common denominator to flood myths is the presence of water, all
other details vary. Depth, date, duration, location, source of water,
effect, survivors, cause etc.
> Ray Martinez
>
Shane
the truth will set you free.
VoiceOfReason
John S. Wilkins wrote:
> Staffan S wrote:
> > <zawa...@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelandet
> > news:1125601825.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>Rainbows are due to refraction of light through water droplets. One can
> >>recreate one on a sunny day with a garden hose or a prism.
> >>Are you going to have a problem with optics now ? Are we all
> >>"Newtonists" now ?
> >
> >
> > Great. So now we can add another area of science that will be abandoned if
> > the creationists gain control. Thank you, Ray. You have just given
> > everyone with glasses a reason to fight creationism.
> >
> > Staffan S
> >
> I just had a thought. For this to be true, no rainbow could have been caused
> by water before the Flood. Hence the physical properties of water were
> different before the Flood. Hence, all of the problems we have with the Flood,
> such as the complete lack of geological evidence for it, can be explained by
> these different properties. Water was approximately the density of carbon
> dioxide, and *that's* why there's no evidence. It also explains where the
> "waters" came from - the air - and where they went - the air.
>
> Isn't creation science a wonderful thing?
The sad thing is, if you put a paperback cover on that idea, some
schmuck will buy it.
Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
> There is no reason the rainbow should appear, except that it was
> created by God as a sign that He will not destroy by flood ever again.
Of course one has to completely ignore the known principles of optical
refraction to fall for that laughable "explanation", but then, we know well
that cretinists hate that gray matter in their skulls...
By the way, using the same kind of "reasoning" ("It's written in a religious
book so it's proof of that religion!!!!!!!111111111!!!!!!!!"), you lose
because the Poetic Edda and the other sagas of the North say clearly that
the rainbow is nothing more, nothing less than the bridge from our world
Midgard to Asgard where the High Gods dwell.
--
Regards
Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
It's a Miracle
circular. Peculiar god would make a convenant that you can only see
fully with an airplane.
--
My kaleidoscope art webpage:
http://community-2.webtv.net/Amused_2_Death_/Kaleidoscope/
Keep spam illegitimate, Report spam to:
http://spamcop.net/
VoiceOfReason
The more Viking gods the better. What was it... you can lead a Norse
to water ...
:-)
VoiceOfReason
Just by the title of the thread, you just *knew* this was gonna be a
feeding frenzy. :-)
Wombat
It's a Miracle wrote:
> You can't see a full rainbow unless your in an airplane and it's
> circular. Peculiar god would make a convenant that you can only see
> fully with an airplane.
I once looked over a cliff in North Wales and could see a circular
rainbow against the clouds in the cwm below.
Terry Rigby
It's a Miracle
>>You can't see a full rainbow unless your
>> in an airplane and it's circular. Peculiar
>> god would make a convenant that you
>> can only see fully with an airplane.
>I once looked over a cliff in North Wales
> and could see a circular rainbow against
> the clouds in the cwm below.
>Terry Rigby
I never saw a circular rainbow but I saw a multiple rainbow with five
rainbows and the first one was as bright as a laser pointer and each
consecutive rainbow was dimmer. It's diminishing brightness was probably
the inverse square law (?) or something. I chased it around in a car to
see if there were more than five rainbows and the only angle I could get
I saw five rainbows so thats probably the limit you can see on the
ground. Maybe an airplane you can see more?
Dogma Discharge
>What was it... you can lead a Norse
> to water ...
> :-)
>
But you can't make him a berserker? :)
--
Kind Regards
Cameron
The Last Conformist
Dogma Discharge wrote:
> "VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
>
> >What was it... you can lead a Norse
> > to water ...
> > :-)
> >
>
> But you can't make him a berserker? :)
No, you can't make him drink it.
Dogma Discharge
news:1125654174....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > But you can't make him a berserker? :)
>
> No, you can't make him drink it.
>
Sjoe, maar jy's a ernstige seuntjie Ne?
--
Kind Regards
Cameron
The Last Conformist
I don't speak Dutch.
Dogma Discharge
> > Sjoe, maar jy's a ernstige seuntjie Ne?
>
> I don't speak Dutch.
>
Me neither.
--
Kind Regards
Cameron
rja.ca...@excite.com
It's a Miracle wrote:
> >>You can't see a full rainbow unless your
> >> in an airplane and it's circular. Peculiar
> >> god would make a convenant that you
> >> can only see fully with an airplane.
>
> >I once looked over a cliff in North Wales
> > and could see a circular rainbow against
> > the clouds in the cwm below.
>
> >Terry Rigby
>
> I never saw a circular rainbow but I saw a multiple rainbow with five
> rainbows and the first one was as bright as a laser pointer and each
> consecutive rainbow was dimmer. It's diminishing brightness was probably
> the inverse square law (?) or something. I chased it around in a car to
> see if there were more than five rainbows and the only angle I could get
> I saw five rainbows so thats probably the limit you can see on the
> ground. Maybe an airplane you can see more?
I get nervous reading about things you tell us you saw, but a double
rainbow is not extraordinarily rare. In a regular rainbow, light from
the sun behind you goes into each falling raindrop (I think they're
close to perfectly round), is refracted to make the spectrum inside the
raindrop, then reflected off the back of the raindrop, and out again
towards you. The drops in a shower of rain that are in just the right
place for you to see red are in the shape of the arc of the rainbow;
likewise for each other colour.
I think in the second, outer rainbow, you see light that is reflected
twice inside each raindrop, and the colour bands are in the opposite
order. And I think that's the most that I've seen.
Hmm - what difference can sizes of raindrops make? Maybe none, if I
suppose every rain shower has all sizes of raindrop anyway.
Abner Mintz
Luckily she wasn't drinking when she read it. However, Ray would
be very glad to hear that his message brought her closer to God.
She read it, and her immediate reaction was 'Oh my God!' :)
The Last Conformist
I've seen a triple rainbow on one occasion.
Wombat
The version I heard was about a Viking thawed out from a glacier who
was alive but comotose. He was taken to the famous neurologist Dr.
Hortor who was unable to help him, hence you can take a Norse to Hortor
but you can't make him think.
Terry Rigby
zawa...@yahoo.com
More like STOPPED at third grade.
It's a Miracle
>>>>You
Don't be nervous if I said I saw something. Most schizophrenics don't
hallucinate visually. I did once and for some reason my cigarette
lighters looked like the light flew out of my eye and landed on the
lighter. I didn't hallucinate something was there that wasn't. It just
looked like the light went backwards instead of forwards. I kind of got
a theory on that. They got a 4 laser experiment that proves some light
goes backwards in time and I think I saw something related to physics.
They call ordinary light retarded light and light that goes backwards is
called advanced light. I think I saw advanced light that goes backwards
in time and the hallucination was a physical part of physics. I asked a
psychiatrist and she was clueless. It seems strange I would have a
hallucination related to physics and it didn't look like a LSD trip
fantasy or something. The human brain must be able to see advanced light
that goes backwards and unless your schizophrenic you can't see it. I
thought calling it advanced light was appropiate too because if they
could make a pill do that a single cop could police a whole stadium and
find a gun because the light from the gun would behave backwards and fly
out of your eye and land on the gun giving away the criminal. The
interesting thing about is the speed of light looks different going
backwards it's about as fast as 15 mph which also fits the 4 laser
experiment that I read about. So my only hallucination is backed up with
some strange physics and not a fantasy LSD trip.
Auditory hallucinations is a different story. They drove me crazy. The
visual hallucination was kind of entertaining but auditory
hallucinations drive you insane.
One hallucination was there was an alarm where you open a car door and
the beeping noise was driving me crazy. I thought someone wanted me to
find the door. I was like trapped trying to find the door to sanity. My
coffe pot kept clicking and for some reason when you are psychotic your
alert like an eagle and even a clicking coffe pot can have meaning and I
thought it was answering my thoughts yes or no. That stuff don't happen
anymore unless I get a breakdown and statistically I got a good chance
of it never happening again.
Back to the subject of rainbows. I think raindrop size had an effect on
the 5 rainbow I saw because the light looked solid like a laser. Most
rainbows kind of have a bright but faded look to them because the
raindrops are like pixels but this looked solid . The fifth rainbow I
saw was like geometrically dimmer than the first one but It was plenty
bright enough there could have been 10 or more rainbows if I was in an
airplane. I bet it would have looked spectacular to see it from an
airplane where they would have been circular like a tunnel into
infinity. It would have looked like getting hit in the eye with a tunnel
laser.
I saw a 3 rainbow in North Dakota and it wasn't a fraction spectacular
as the 5 rainbow I saw in NJ. A five rainbow might be the limit you can
see on the ground. I might have been able to see one more if it was out
in the desert but I can't be sure.
Augray
wrote in news:<1125633445.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
> Augray wrote:
> > On 1 Sep 2005 12:26:41 -0700, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote in news:<1125602801....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
> >
> > > I know all about a hose and prisms.
> > >
> > > Genesis is saying that the natural phenomenon was created by God as a
> > > sign that He would not destroy by flood ever again.
> >
> > Vertebrate eyes require the same physical laws to function as those that
> > result in the rainbow. If the laws of physics were different in
> > antediluvian times, were eyes different as well?
> >
> >
> > > Nobody can prove that it did not rain prior to 3145 BC.
> > >
> > > Rainbow = proof of Great Flood = deny = not loyal to evidence.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ray Martinez
>
> Your post assumes uniformitarian nonsense that the present is the key
> to the past.
You make similar assumptions.
> The Old world was very different.
Were eyes different too?
> If you were standing on a bridge looking down at the water beneath,
> prior to 3145 BC if you looked up you would see the same thing - a
> water canopy.
Hardly. What kept the water up there?
> This canopy emitted a continual mist that watered the ground and
> prevented the harmful rays of the sun from getting through. This is one
> fact which explains the length of life back then.
What is your evidence that harmful rays from the sun place a significant
limit human life? Wouldn't a substantial amount of mist limit visible
light as well?
> Many persons have pointed out that it could never rain hard enough over
> 40 days to flood the earth - true.
>
> The Bible says two things happened: the canopy burst AND waters of the
> deep gushed from beneath.
>
> Atmospheric conditions such as these, and the total evasion by
> Darwinists, account for the absurdity of the Miller-Urey experiment.
What's absurd about it?
> The best evidence of the Flood is the worldwide accounts and their
> common denominators.
What common denominators, aside from lots of water, would those be?
> Darwinian evasions of this database of evidence
> show what liars they are and how they turn a blind eye to evidence.
You'll have to present more evidence than rainbows and myths to convince
me.
> Ray Martinez
Ray Martinez
You'll have to present more evidence than rainbows and myths to
convince
me.
RAY:
What else would one expect a Darwinist to say in regards to irrefutable
evidence that falsifies everything they have spoken up for ?
Ray Martinez
The Last Conformist
Rhetorical response = Ray can't substantially answer.
Atrocious formating = Ray is a kook
Ray is a Christian = Christianity is bunk
Ray will respond angrily = I am right
jcon
Ray Martinez wrote:
> It appears in the sky after it rains.
>
> Genesis 9:12
>
> "And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me
> and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all
> generations to come: 13 I have set my RAINBOW in the clouds, and it
> will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever
> I bring clouds over the earth and the RAINBOW appears in the clouds, 15
> I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures
> of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy
> all life. 16 Whenever the RAINBOW appears in the clouds, I will see it
> and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living
> creatures of every kind on the earth."
>
> There is no reason the rainbow should appear, except that it was
> created by God as a sign that He will not destroy by flood ever again.
>
> I always said the scientific evidence for the Flood was spectacular and
> could be OBSERVED by anyone.
>
>
>
Are your really this stupid? or do you just enjoy people making fun of
you?
-jc
John Bode
You are either a troll or an idiot. Either way, you are now officially
a waste of time.
**plonk**
Bobby D. Bryant
>>Um, more like skipped fourth grade.
>
> More like STOPPED at third grade.
I give up; that's too hard to top.
Augray
wrote in news:<1125688457.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Inability to present anything other than rainbows and myths =
acknowledgement that there *is* no other evidence. Otherwise you'd
present it.
> Ray Martinez
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125688457.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ray is always quick on the ad hominem draw, especally when he has nothing to
offer.
One would expect someone who knows something about optics, meterology,
biology, and mythology to point out that you haven't presented anything
"irrefutable" and that you have not been able to falsify any scientific
theory.
So, let's have it. Anything but "rainbows and myths"?
Care to try again, Ray?
DJT
James Picone
> Augray wrote:
>
>>On 1 Sep 2005 12:26:41 -0700, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote in news:<1125602801....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>
>>>I know all about a hose and prisms.
>>>
>>>Genesis is saying that the natural phenomenon was created by God as a
>>>sign that He would not destroy by flood ever again.
>>
>>Vertebrate eyes require the same physical laws to function as those that
>>result in the rainbow. If the laws of physics were different in
>>antediluvian times, were eyes different as well?
>>
>>
>>
>>>Nobody can prove that it did not rain prior to 3145 BC.
>>>
>>>Rainbow = proof of Great Flood = deny = not loyal to evidence.
>>>
>>>
>>>Ray Martinez
>
>
> Your post assumes uniformitarian nonsense that the present is the key
> to the past.
>
>
> prior to 3145 BC if you looked up you would see the same thing - a
> water canopy.
>
> prevented the harmful rays of the sun from getting through. This is one
> fact which explains the length of life back then.
>
> 40 days to flood the earth - true.
>
> The Bible says two things happened: the canopy burst AND waters of the
> deep gushed from beneath.
>
> Atmospheric conditions such as these, and the total evasion by
> Darwinists, account for the absurdity of the Miller-Urey experiment.
>
> show what liars they are and how they turn a blind eye to evidence.
>
>
If you don't assume the past is the same as the present will be roughly
the same as the future you can't explain much in history. And don't
start talking about nonsense. Who's the person suggesting a ridiculously
huge canopy of water covering the entire earth, again? Additionally, you
appear not to understand physics.
1 - Without screwing around with the laws of motion and gravitation, you
couldn't possibly have a bloody huge canopy of water floating in the
Earth's atmosphere.
2 - Have you ever heard of the Greenhouse Effect? The mist produced by
what is essentially a bloody huge cloud would stop lots of EM radiation,
yes. But what came through, wouldn't go out. You're turning Earth into
Venus, I'm afraid.
3 - Blind eye to evidence? What evidence can you provide for a worldwide
flood except 'Lots of people have myths about them!'. Well, lots of
these myths are different. And floods are fairly common events. A large
flood near a population centre is a global flood to early civilisation.
That's the explanation.
So, essentially, you are a kook.
Earle Jones
James Picone <james_...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > Augray wrote:
> >
> >>On 1 Sep 2005 12:26:41 -0700, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
> >>wrote in news:<1125602801....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I know all about a hose and prisms.
> >>>
> >>>Genesis is saying that the natural phenomenon was created by God as a
> >>>sign that He would not destroy by flood ever again.
> >>
> >>Vertebrate eyes require the same physical laws to function as those that
> >>result in the rainbow. If the laws of physics were different in
> >>antediluvian times, were eyes different as well?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Nobody can prove that it did not rain prior to 3145 BC.
> >>>
> >>>Rainbow = proof of Great Flood = deny = not loyal to evidence.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Ray Martinez
> >
> >
> > Your post assumes uniformitarian nonsense that the present is the key
> > to the past.
> >
> > The Old world was very different.
> >
> > If you were standing on a bridge looking down at the water beneath,
> > prior to 3145 BC if you looked up you would see the same thing - a
> > water canopy.
> >
> > This canopy emitted a continual mist that watered the ground and
> > prevented the harmful rays of the sun from getting through. This is one
> > fact which explains the length of life back then.
*
Ray: Are you saying that it is the sun's harmful rays that prevent
me from living to be 900 years old?
You are a bigger fool than I thought. You are also a lying idiot --
truly a turd in the punchbowl of life.
Love,
earle
*
rja.ca...@excite.com
Well, but maybe it /wasn't/. We used to have much shorter days, I'm
told.
> And don't
> start talking about nonsense. Who's the person suggesting a ridiculously
> huge canopy of water covering the entire earth, again? Additionally, you
> appear not to understand physics.
>
> 1 - Without screwing around with the laws of motion and gravitation, you
> couldn't possibly have a bloody huge canopy of water floating in the
> Earth's atmosphere.
>
> 2 - Have you ever heard of the Greenhouse Effect? The mist produced by
> what is essentially a bloody huge cloud would stop lots of EM radiation,
> yes. But what came through, wouldn't go out. You're turning Earth into
> Venus, I'm afraid.
Not forgetting whose side I'm supposed to be on, and I forget if I've
offered this before, but how about if the extra water is ice in orbit?
And maybe we could even get enough scattering of sunlight so there'd be
no single visible light source and therefore no rainbows. Then an
orbital perturbation and whoosh, it all comes down and there's a flood.
A /warm/ flood.
Of course we still have to get /rid/ of the water, and it also makes
God's promise not to send another Flood a bit thin when He doesn't
/have/ one hanging over our heads any more. (I think the vapour canopy
has the same problem.) I mean, there's Saturn's rings, but we'd have
to be /amazingly/ sinful to bring /those/ down on our heads. Or,
y'know, relocate to Saturn. Maybe when the Sun gets a bit hotter and
cooks the Earth (gonna happen...)
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> Well, but maybe it /wasn't/. We used to have much shorter days, I'm
> told.
Yes, but not appreciably shorter in the interval the H. Sapiens has been
around, circa 250,000 years.
The moon was much closers, just beyond Rouche's limit. As the moon
receded we slowed in our rotation. The is the conservation of angular
momentum at work. The tides are slowing down the earth and the moon
draws farther away. Sometime in the future earth and moon will be in a
tidal lock facking each other as they dance around a common center of
gravity.
Bob Kolker
>
Augray
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
news:<1125781473.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
> James Picone wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
[snip]
> > > Your post assumes uniformitarian nonsense that the present is the key
> > > to the past.
> > >
> > > The Old world was very different.
> > >
> > > If you were standing on a bridge looking down at the water beneath,
> > > prior to 3145 BC if you looked up you would see the same thing - a
> > > water canopy.
> > >
> > > This canopy emitted a continual mist that watered the ground and
> > > prevented the harmful rays of the sun from getting through. This is one
> > > fact which explains the length of life back then.
[snip]
> > And don't
> > start talking about nonsense. Who's the person suggesting a ridiculously
> > huge canopy of water covering the entire earth, again? Additionally, you
> > appear not to understand physics.
> >
> > 1 - Without screwing around with the laws of motion and gravitation, you
> > couldn't possibly have a bloody huge canopy of water floating in the
> > Earth's atmosphere.
> >
> > 2 - Have you ever heard of the Greenhouse Effect? The mist produced by
> > what is essentially a bloody huge cloud would stop lots of EM radiation,
> > yes. But what came through, wouldn't go out. You're turning Earth into
> > Venus, I'm afraid.
>
> Not forgetting whose side I'm supposed to be on, and I forget if I've
> offered this before, but how about if the extra water is ice in orbit?
> And maybe we could even get enough scattering of sunlight so there'd be
> no single visible light source and therefore no rainbows. Then an
> orbital perturbation and whoosh, it all comes down and there's a flood.
> A /warm/ flood.
How is the ice going to stay in orbit over the poles? Or are you
(playfully) suggesting multiple orbits?
The Last Conformist
That's gotta be an awfully odd orbital perturbation. Not to mention the
stuff's gonna have a very considerable lateral velocity to maintain the
angular momentum, which would turn the heat problem from certain death
to everything on the planetary surface to certainer death.
In short, it would be alot less fuss simply to magic in the water.
Ray Martinez
This is the required Darwinian response to any evidence which falsifies
their previously decided sacred cows: just brand it a myth because
these facts do not fit our philosophical worldview.
Worldwide Flood accounts have too many common denominators to qualify
as your evidence evading trump card of "myth". How you Darwinists
avoid this reality is only explainable by the desire to hate God and
the understood accountability that comes if He is recognized, which
inevitably means you will have to listen to a theist.
Asserting myth is evading evidence that could not of been manipulated
or made up, especially since the accounts are worldwide AND no modern
communication abilities existed.
The Flood is a fact by this database alone if you don't have a
atheistic worldview to cater to.
As for the rainbow we have literary matching reality and vice versa =
self corroborating evidence.
I told you over and over the claims and declarations of the Bible can
be identified with objects in reality = fact.
You and the other Darwinian clowns are just evading the clear objective
facts pointed out by me.
The Bible verses are accurate, proof of is the existence of rainbows.
You could at least assert "coincidence" but your desire not to give any
recognition to the Bible lest it give validity to the existence of the
Deity is done to avoid the inconvenience of having to come under the
authority of your Maker = evil.
Ray Martinez
James Picone
a rainbow before? If you get water around a point source of light, you
get a rainbow. The people who wrote the Old Testament would have noticed
this. They decided to explain it. The existence of rainbows is,
therefore, not evidence that the bible is correct in the same way that
mention of swords in the bible and the existance of swords is not
evidence that the bible is correct.
Now will you provide some actual proof, beyond an assertion that many
cultures have similar flood myths. It's very simple. Either provide us
with geological evidence for a worldwide flood, or provide us with, say,
five of these myths. And they better have more in common then water.
Raymond Griffith
rja.ca...@excite.com at rja.ca...@excite.com wrote on 9/3/05 5:04 PM:
This is perhaps one of the best objections to the "water vapor canopy"
notion I have ever heard, and I appreciate your mentioning it.
The Scripture, of course, refers to God "opening the windows of heaven",
which is in keeping with the Babylonian and Egyptian notions that the primal
waters of chaos were outside of the dome of heaven, and that the gods fought
to keep it back. The Flood would be God returning the world to Chaos for a
time.
But to say that God's promise is built on an inability to bring the waters
back (as the water vapor canopy's dissolution would do) makes such a promise
of never flooding the world again to be hollow and empty.
My thanks.
Raymond E. Griffith
rja.ca...@excite.com
Uh... probably. You're objecting to material in a polar orbit probably
hitting the rest of the material that isn't in a polar orbit?
Having said that, maybe we don't need to go all the way up to the
poles? I mean, if all of humanity lives in the Middle East at this
time.
As for de-orbiting the material, I have another idea - bloat the
atmosphere up somehow - perhaps with the first big introduction of a
water asteroid - so that all the other particles orbiting in space are
fairly suddenly /inside/ the atmosphere, and they slow down hard, with,
um, probably a colossal destructive force.
But, hey, that's what we were going for. Boiling oceans, a well-made
Ark can still cope?
The Last Conformist
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Augray wrote:
> > On 2 Sep 2005 12:14:17 -0700, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote in news:<1125688457.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
> >
> > > DARWINIST:
> > >
> > > You'll have to present more evidence than rainbows and myths to
> > > convince
> > > me.
> > >
> > > RAY:
> > >
> > > What else would one expect a Darwinist to say in regards to irrefutable
> > > evidence that falsifies everything they have spoken up for ?
> >
> > Inability to present anything other than rainbows and myths =
> > acknowledgement that there *is* no other evidence. Otherwise you'd
> > present it.
> >
> >
> > > Ray Martinez
>
> This is the required Darwinian response to any evidence which falsifies
> their previously decided sacred cows: just brand it a myth because
> these facts do not fit our philosophical worldview.
>
> Worldwide Flood accounts have too many common denominators to qualify
> as your evidence evading trump card of "myth".
If you cared one iota about your credibility, you'd gone on to to
*list* those common denominators. Instead, you set out on yet another
of your incoherent whines. How can you expect anyone to take you
seriously?
Raymond Griffith
remarcs...@ozemail.com.au wrote on 9/2/05 12:23 AM:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>> Augray wrote:
>>
>>> On 1 Sep 2005 12:26:41 -0700, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote in news:<1125602801....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I know all about a hose and prisms.
>>>>
>>>> Genesis is saying that the natural phenomenon was created by God as a
>>>> sign that He would not destroy by flood ever again.
>>>
>>> Vertebrate eyes require the same physical laws to function as those that
>>> result in the rainbow. If the laws of physics were different in
>>> antediluvian times, were eyes different as well?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Nobody can prove that it did not rain prior to 3145 BC.
>>>>
>>>> Rainbow = proof of Great Flood = deny = not loyal to evidence.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ray Martinez
>>
>>
>> Your post assumes uniformitarian nonsense that the present is the key
>> to the past.
>
> Ask Ray if he will swallow a cyanide pill. A belief that it will kill
> him is just unformitarian nonsense based on all previous takers being
> killed, by it.
>
>>
>> The Old world was very different.
>
> Don't ever expect Ray to provide any evidence for this assertion?
>
>>
>> If you were standing on a bridge looking down at the water beneath,
>> prior to 3145 BC if you looked up you would see the same thing - a
>> water canopy.
>
> One wonders how Ray knows this. He wasn't there, and no eye witness
> accounts survive.
>
>>
>> This canopy emitted a continual mist that watered the ground and
>> prevented the harmful rays of the sun from getting through. This is one
>> fact which explains the length of life back then.
>
> Ray has apparently never been diving.
>
>>
>> Many persons have pointed out that it could never rain hard enough over
>> 40 days to flood the earth - true.
>>
>> The Bible says two things happened: the canopy burst AND waters of the
>> deep gushed from beneath.
>
> No, it says the windows of heaven were opened. No mention of the canopy
> being damaged. It also says that at the end of the 40 days the windows
> were stopped (closed) and the rain was restrained, not that the canopy
> was empty. I am surprised that Ray is less than honest in this regard,
> as he is talking of the book he considers inerrant, so why does he
> misrepresent it?
I don't think Ray believes he is misinterpreting the evidence. He has been
so indoctrinated that whenever he reads the Scripture, he reads it for what
he thinks it ought to say instead of what it actually does say.
It is a difficulty not exclusive to fundamentalists, but which
fundamentalists are very prone to. I admit to reading the Scriptures as I
had been taught to read them for many years after my conversion. It has only
been the last several years in which I have actively examined my
preconceptions to read the Text for what it says.
Preconditioning is very powerful. We should not be surprised when we find
someone who is unable to break through it.
And perhaps there are issues in which all of us are unable to break a
preconditioning.
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
>
>>
>> Atmospheric conditions such as these, and the total evasion by
>> Darwinists, account for the absurdity of the Miller-Urey experiment.
>
> There is only one person evading evidence in this thread and we all know
> who that is.
>
>>
>> The best evidence of the Flood is the worldwide accounts and their
>> common denominators.
>
> One would have thought that the best evidence of the flood would be the
> physical signs such a cataclysmic event would have left behind. But
> perhaps Ray knows the evidence better that I. It seems he is openly
> admitting that the flood left no physical evidence.
>
>
>> Darwinian evasions of this database of evidence
>> show what liars they are and how they turn a blind eye to evidence.
>>
>
> What it really shows is that they actually examine the evidence. The
> only common denominator to flood myths is the presence of water, all
> other details vary. Depth, date, duration, location, source of water,
> effect, survivors, cause etc.
>
>> Ray Martinez
>>
>
> Shane
> the truth will set you free.
>
shane
--
shane
And the truth shall set you free.
Ray Martinez
I don't think Ray believes he is misinterpreting the evidence. He has
been
so indoctrinated that whenever he reads the Scripture, he reads it for
what
he thinks it ought to say instead of what it actually does say.
It is a difficulty not exclusive to fundamentalists, but which
fundamentalists are very prone to. I admit to reading the Scriptures as
I
had been taught to read them for many years after my conversion. It has
only
been the last several years in which I have actively examined my
preconceptions to read the Text for what it says.
Preconditioning is very powerful. We should not be surprised when we
find
someone who is unable to break through it.
And perhaps there are issues in which all of us are unable to break a
preconditioning.
RAY:
What is written above is a defense of subjectivism, idealism, atheism.
IOW, independance, sourcelessness.
Independance in this context is a loser who cannot relate to
established methodologies and the objective facts that arise.
IOW, Raymond is an independant contractor all alone fooling himself
that his solitary way is normal and everyone else is abnormal.
RM
RM
shane
> I don't think Ray believes he is misinterpreting the evidence. He has been
> so indoctrinated that whenever he reads the Scripture, he reads it for what
> he thinks it ought to say instead of what it actually does say.
I agree with you Ray, but the sad thing is that this sort of response to
the scriptures is not scriptural, as the comments about the Bereans
shows. It's all very well to plead ignorance as a spiritual child, but
the christian calling is to grow in grace and knowledge. None of this is
any surprise to you, and it should not be a surprise to Ray M either,
however he makes the claim that he is a spiritual heavy-weight, so he
should not stumble over stuff a spiritual light-weight can understand. I
know from my own experience that the best position under these
circumstances is to remain silent and be thought a fool, rather than
speak up and remove all doubt. And for those of us who see Ray M's
posts, we have to juggle our dual responsibilities as outlined in
Proverbs as to whether we answer him or not. And if people think I am a
fool for responding to Ray M then so be it.
>
> It is a difficulty not exclusive to fundamentalists, but which
> fundamentalists are very prone to. I admit to reading the Scriptures as I
> had been taught to read them for many years after my conversion. It has only
> been the last several years in which I have actively examined my
> preconceptions to read the Text for what it says.
>
> Preconditioning is very powerful. We should not be surprised when we find
> someone who is unable to break through it.
>
> And perhaps there are issues in which all of us are unable to break a
> preconditioning.
>
> Regards,
>
> Raymond E. Griffith
>
You are undoubtedly wiser than me in this regard, and perhaps more
tolerant. You also have the advantage of being better educated than me.
I find I can not contribute much to the science as discussed on t.o. but
feel I can respond to logical errors and flawed thinking. I rarely
respond directly to Ray M, as I do not want to have the debate, such as
it is, degenerate into a slanging match. I try to address his errors and
mis-conceptions so as to ensure that there is always a counter to his
often simplistic arguments. I have nothing personal against Ray M
himself, he is just another person who has fallen into the trap of
letting others do his thinking for him, which is all to often a common
theme of modern society.
shane
Note how Ray M does not address the point of Ray G's post. All Ray M had
to do to show myself and Ray G wrong, was to point out how he did not
misrepresent the plain words of scripture. It seems that alternative
does not even occur to Ray M. He just wants to attack his accusers,
never realising the best way to deal with them is to not give them
ammunition in the first place, in this particular case, if he had not
mis-represented scripture, then none of the ensuing posts would have
occurred.
Mike Painter
Interesting comment.
While it is possible to see rainbows and even moonbows in clouds under the
right condition, the RAINBOW is a function of light passing through water
and there is no need for a cloud.
The RAINBOW seen inside clouds is interesting but is not all that pretty.
Incidentally if you ever paid attention to what you see you will find it
extremely rare for there to be only one rainbow.
Can you tell us why the sky under the rainbow is darker than the sky above?
Rolf
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> skrev i
meldingsnyheter:1125633445.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Augray wrote:
> > On 1 Sep 2005 12:26:41 -0700, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote in news:<1125602801....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
> >
> > > I know all about a hose and prisms.
> > >
> > > Genesis is saying that the natural phenomenon was created by God as a
> > > sign that He would not destroy by flood ever again.
> >
> > Vertebrate eyes require the same physical laws to function as those that
> > result in the rainbow. If the laws of physics were different in
> > antediluvian times, were eyes different as well?
> >
> >
> > > Nobody can prove that it did not rain prior to 3145 BC.
> > >
> > > Rainbow = proof of Great Flood = deny = not loyal to evidence.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ray Martinez
>
> Your post assumes uniformitarian nonsense that the present is the key
> to the past.
>
>
> prior to 3145 BC if you looked up you would see the same thing - a
> water canopy.
>
> prevented the harmful rays of the sun from getting through. This is one
> fact which explains the length of life back then.
>
> 40 days to flood the earth - true.
>
> The Bible says two things happened: the canopy burst AND waters of the
> deep gushed from beneath.
>
> Darwinists, account for the absurdity of the Miller-Urey experiment.
>
> show what liars they are and how they turn a blind eye to evidence.
>
>
God creates a natural phenomenon? Now what the heck does that mean? Nature
works in certain ways, all we need to to in order to 'create' the natural
phenomenon of a rainbow is to set uo the conditions for a rainbow to occur:
Provide the right conditions for light deflection, bingo! Works every time -
how could it not have worked 'before' God 'created' it? What changes in the
laws of nature did he have to cause, and how were the laws of nature before
the event?
But why did he even go to the trouble of creating a flood? When he is able
to, just by the sanp of his fingers, to cause whatever he wants to happen?
And how come he didn't even foreseee the events that made him want to
destroy all life on the earth except Noah and whatever life forms he was
able to stuff into his ark?
And worse still: After going to all the trouble, man continued in his sinful
ways just as before. God obvously botched it this time too!
Ray Martinez's God is indeed a pitiful character, but I suspect he is just a
creation of Rays' murky brain.
All that Ray relies on for evidence is the bible - and I have yet to see a
bible with god's signature on it. I really don't know who wrote it , when,
or why. In most cases, we want a little more than just somebody's written
word, especially when we have no means of verification.
What about Miller-Urey, what absurdity is Ray referring to? The experimetn
seems to make perfect sense, unless Einstein got it all wrong - but
predictions made by the theory of relativity has been tested and confirmed,
so it takes a wee bit more that just Ray's rantings to dismantle the current
cosmological paradigm. But since Ray seems to know more than msot of us,
perhaps some of the top theoretical physicists might be more suitable
discussion partners for him?
With respect to the water canopy and the hydroplate theory, they rank at
the top of all the silly inventions created by creationists to defend their
faith.
It takes very little brain poweer to realize that life on earth would be
impossible with such a canopy in place, but even worse, there is no way that
such a canopy could exist - it could not have been there in the first place,
and even if somebody should have put it there, it would just as soon fall
down.
I was saddened when reading syndicated columnist Gregory Rummo's account of
how he had taken his young som to the ocean and explained to him how the
oceans were evidence for Noah's flood, the water had come from the bursting
underground reservoirs. It doesn't take much common sense to realize that
the hydroplates never could have existed; structures like that wouild have
been extremely unstable and would have collapsed instead of remaining intact
for any meaningful length of time. Likewise, any of the traces that should
have been left by them remain yet to be found.
I had a small dispute with Greg about the Grand Canyon where I asked if he
would care to comment on the fact that the Canyon meanders like a river
instead of looking like it was the result of a single flood event. I also
wanted to know if he was both pro-ID as well as YEC, since I remember that
some years ago, he had been awarded a price for his review of Behe's DBB,
and at that time he had seeemed quite enthusiastic about ID.
Greg::
I am not sure of the hydrology of meander formation cut rapidly by flood
waters. I'm not an engineer, only a chemist. But the sediments would have
been soft having been recently deposited so scouring might explain the
phenomenon although I am unsure how it would account for deep horseshoes and
other double-back formations.
Behe and the ID crowd attempt to approach origins form a purely scientific
point of view (or at least an intellectual point of view) and disregard the
religion issue. This is done to gain mainstream acceptance in the scientific
communiyt and not because they are attempting to introduce a Trojan Horse.
At least that's my take on it.
..........
Me::
As for the Canyon - I belive that in order to create meanders, it takes
time. The rush of a flood would be rather straight, while a river over time
will meander. Another aspect of a flood sceanrio that I can't quite make
sense of, is that a receeding water level ought not create a huge stream
capable of carving the canyon. The water level would just drop gradually all
over the place. Where would the reservoir that caused the creation of the
canyon have been? A reservoir, and a sudden breakthrough would be required,
the way I see it.
Lake Missoula is an example of this - but I suppose you don't believe in
that story.
Greg:
Frankly I don't see how an Intelligent Designer like God couldn't create in
6 literal days.
Flood waters aussuaging off the continental shelf could follow the natural
terrain, like a river bed.
....................
End of mail exchanges.
I did not continue the discussion, arguing with a YEC hardly gets you
anywhere. I just note now when writing this, his mention of soft sediments.
Ha, with soft sediments, there simply is no way that the canyon could become
so narrow and with such steep sides. I believe a flood would leave quite
different traces. I have some ideas about what we might expect to see, but
maybe a geologist could tell us what the most likely outcome would be. All I
have is common sense, I am not even a chemist.
I cannot see how the flood of Noeah myth can account for the creation and
existence of the Niagara Falls. What is the current rate of erosion at the
falls?
Rolf
Augray
wrote in news:<1125791067.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
> Augray wrote:
> > On 2 Sep 2005 12:14:17 -0700, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote in news:<1125688457.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
> >
> > > DARWINIST:
> > >
> > > You'll have to present more evidence than rainbows and myths to
> > > convince
> > > me.
> > >
> > > RAY:
> > >
> > > What else would one expect a Darwinist to say in regards to irrefutable
> > > evidence that falsifies everything they have spoken up for ?
> >
> > Inability to present anything other than rainbows and myths =
> > acknowledgement that there *is* no other evidence. Otherwise you'd
> > present it.
> >
> >
> > > Ray Martinez
>
> This is the required Darwinian response to any evidence which falsifies
> their previously decided sacred cows: just brand it a myth because
> these facts do not fit our philosophical worldview.
Simply repeating a flood story (or any other one) doesn't make it true.
> Worldwide Flood accounts have too many common denominators to qualify
> as your evidence evading trump card of "myth".
Failure to list these common denominators = no common denominators.
> How you Darwinists
> avoid this reality is only explainable by the desire to hate God and
> the understood accountability that comes if He is recognized, which
> inevitably means you will have to listen to a theist.
Rather, it's explainable by the desire to make sense of the world. Your
desire to give a literal biblical interpretation to rainbows requires
you to throw out virtually everything we know about physics.
> Asserting myth is evading evidence that could not of been manipulated
> or made up, especially since the accounts are worldwide AND no modern
> communication abilities existed.
So floods never happen unless they're worldwide? You seem to think that
people have no imaginations.
> The Flood is a fact by this database alone if you don't have a
> atheistic worldview to cater to.
I don't have an atheistic worldview to cater to. I prefer to think of
God as *rational*, unlike you.
> As for the rainbow we have literary matching reality and vice versa =
> self corroborating evidence.
Self-corroborating evidence is useless. One can make up stories about
rainbows, and then assert "self-corroborating evidence". For example:
rainbows exist, therefore leprechauns exist. Leprechauns explain the
existence of rainbows.
> I told you over and over the claims and declarations of the Bible can
> be identified with objects in reality = fact.
And I've yet to see you address the fact that Daniel states that the
father of Belshazzar was Nebuchadnezzar, when in fact *Nabonidus* was
the father of Belshazzar. This is shown by Babylonian documents.
> You and the other Darwinian clowns are just evading the clear objective
> facts pointed out by me.
Rainbows do not prove that the Noachian flood happened any more than
they prove that leprechauns exist.
> The Bible verses are accurate, proof of is the existence of rainbows.
The Elder Edda stories are accurate, proof of is the existence of
rainbows.
> You could at least assert "coincidence" but your desire not to give any
> recognition to the Bible lest it give validity to the existence of the
> Deity is done to avoid the inconvenience of having to come under the
> authority of your Maker = evil.
I have no such worries. The simple fact is that there is no geological
evidence for a worldwide flood.
> Ray Martinez
Earle Jones
"Rolf" <rolf.a...@c2i.net> wrote:
> Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> skrev i
> meldingsnyheter:1125633445.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Augray wrote:
> > > On 1 Sep 2005 12:26:41 -0700, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote in news:<1125602801....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
> > >
> > > > I know all about a hose and prisms.
> > > >
> > > > Genesis is saying that the natural phenomenon was created by God as a
> > > > sign that He would not destroy by flood ever again.
> > >
> > > Vertebrate eyes require the same physical laws to function as those that
> > > result in the rainbow. If the laws of physics were different in
> > > antediluvian times, were eyes different as well?
> > >
> > >
> > > > Nobody can prove that it did not rain prior to 3145 BC.
*
Right.
And nobody can prove that the universe was not formed by little
flying pink unicorns, farting out little rose petals which
eventually solidified into what became the stars and planets.
Can you prove it didn't happen? Were you there?
What impresses me most about eyes is that their sensitivity is about
one octave (wavelengths 400 to 700 nm) and, over hundreds of
octaves, that happens to be the only transparent octave of sea water.
Why did God design our eyes so that we could see through the ocean?
earle
*
"The Communist, like the Christian, believes that his doctrine is
essential to salvation, and it is this belief which makes salvation
possible for him. It is the similarities between Christianity and
Communism that make them incompatible with each other...The most
dangerous features of Communism are reminiscent of the
medieval Church. They consist of fanatical acceptance of doctrines
embodied in a sacred book, unwillingness to examine these doctrines
critically, and savage persecution of those who reject them."
--Bertrand Russell, "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?",
(1954 -- published in a Swedish newspaper during the
height of Sen. Joe McCarthy's anti-communist hysteria)
Richard Clayton
> It appears in the sky after it rains.
>
> Genesis 9:12
>
> "And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me
> and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all
> generations to come: 13 I have set my RAINBOW in the clouds, and it
> will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever
> I bring clouds over the earth and the RAINBOW appears in the clouds, 15
> I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures
> of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy
> all life. 16 Whenever the RAINBOW appears in the clouds, I will see it
> and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living
> creatures of every kind on the earth."
>
> There is no reason the rainbow should appear, except that it was
> created by God as a sign that He will not destroy by flood ever again.
>
> I always said the scientific evidence for the Flood was spectacular and
> could be OBSERVED by anyone.
Can you show evidence that the diffraction of light worked differently
at some point in the past?
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"During wars laws are silent." -- Cicero
Richard Clayton
> I know all about a hose and prisms.
>
> sign that He would not destroy by flood ever again.
>
> Nobody can prove that it did not rain prior to 3145 BC.
As an old Earth creationist, you just put yourself in a bind. How did
the flora and fauna of the Earth survive for all that time before the
Great Flood, without any water cycle to support them?
(Or maybe it was sandworms all the way down?)
> Rainbow = proof of Great Flood = deny = not loyal to evidence.
--
Richard Clayton
> Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>>Augray wrote:
>>
>>>On 1 Sep 2005 12:26:41 -0700, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
>>>wrote in news:<1125602801....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Genesis is saying that the natural phenomenon was created by God as a
>>>>sign that He would not destroy by flood ever again.
>>>
>>>result in the rainbow. If the laws of physics were different in
>>>antediluvian times, were eyes different as well?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>Your post assumes uniformitarian nonsense that the present is the key
>>to the past.
>
> him is just unformitarian nonsense based on all previous takers being
> killed, by it.
Indeed, the Bible says that the elect can drink poison without being
harmed. I wonder if Ray would be willing to personally defend the
inerrancy of that verse?
>>The Old world was very different.
>
> Don't ever expect Ray to provide any evidence for this assertion?
... or for anything, ever. (Cf. our debate.)
>>If you were standing on a bridge looking down at the water beneath,
>>prior to 3145 BC if you looked up you would see the same thing - a
>>water canopy.
>
> One wonders how Ray knows this. He wasn't there, and no eye witness
> accounts survive.
>
>>This canopy emitted a continual mist that watered the ground and
>>prevented the harmful rays of the sun from getting through. This is one
>>fact which explains the length of life back then.
>
> Ray has apparently never been diving.
I have. And I have actually managed to sunburn while doing it!
>>Many persons have pointed out that it could never rain hard enough over
>>40 days to flood the earth - true.
>>
>>The Bible says two things happened: the canopy burst AND waters of the
>>deep gushed from beneath.
>
> No, it says the windows of heaven were opened. No mention of the canopy
> being damaged. It also says that at the end of the 40 days the windows
> were stopped (closed) and the rain was restrained, not that the canopy
> was empty. I am surprised that Ray is less than honest in this regard,
> as he is talking of the book he considers inerrant, so why does he
> misrepresent it?
>
>>Atmospheric conditions such as these, and the total evasion by
>>Darwinists, account for the absurdity of the Miller-Urey experiment.
>
> There is only one person evading evidence in this thread and we all know
> who that is.
>
>>The best evidence of the Flood is the worldwide accounts and their
>>common denominators.
>
> One would have thought that the best evidence of the flood would be the
> physical signs such a cataclysmic event would have left behind. But
> perhaps Ray knows the evidence better that I. It seems he is openly
> admitting that the flood left no physical evidence.
>
>>Darwinian evasions of this database of evidence
>>show what liars they are and how they turn a blind eye to evidence.
>
> What it really shows is that they actually examine the evidence. The
> only common denominator to flood myths is the presence of water, all
> other details vary. Depth, date, duration, location, source of water,
> effect, survivors, cause etc.
>
>>Ray Martinez
>
> Shane
> the truth will set you free.
Richard Clayton
I don't think he does. Ray has stated several times that the majority
is always wrong, that "Darwinists" could not become Christian even if
they wanted it, and that a "Darwinist" agreeing with Ray would prove him
wrong. Ray isn't interested in changing anybody's opinion; he's here to
exercise his martyrdom complex.
rja.ca...@excite.com
Earle Jones wrote:
> What impresses me most about eyes is that their sensitivity is about
> one octave (wavelengths 400 to 700 nm) and, over hundreds of
> octaves, that happens to be the only transparent octave of sea water.
>
> Why did God design our eyes so that we could see through the ocean?
You also have to see through the stuff that your eyeballs are made of.
But I suppose that that's begging the question. They could have been
made of different stuff. Some lifeforms' are, right?
Ray Martinez
Richard Clayton wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > I know all about a hose and prisms.
> >
> > Genesis is saying that the natural phenomenon was created by God as a
> > sign that He would not destroy by flood ever again.
> >
> > Nobody can prove that it did not rain prior to 3145 BC.
>
> As an old Earth creationist, you just put yourself in a bind. How did
> the flora and fauna of the Earth survive for all that time before the
> Great Flood, without any water cycle to support them?
> (Or maybe it was sandworms all the way down?)
>
Hi Richard:
Hope to see you in public without your sunglasses soon.
To answer your question:
I already mentioned the canopy continually emitted a mist just like the
Bible evidences.
BTW, the canopic theory was originally put forth by JPL scientists.
Ray Martinez
shane
> BTW, the canopic theory was originally put forth by JPL scientists.
Personally I'd be more interested in the theories they put first, second
and third. :)