4,994
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 69:
Line 69: + + + + +
→Not seen before the Great Flood
Of course, if there is a standard Bible commentary that says "this means that before the Flood, there were no rainbows; rain existed before the flood and sunlight existed before the flood, but the result of sunlight shining on water droplets was different before and after the flood," it should be cited. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:27, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Of course, if there is a standard Bible commentary that says "this means that before the Flood, there were no rainbows; rain existed before the flood and sunlight existed before the flood, but the result of sunlight shining on water droplets was different before and after the flood," it should be cited. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:27, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
OK, I'm snipping
:This explanation, however, is dubious as it fails to explain why rainbows were never seen before the end of the great flood.
Again, it can be reinserted if someone has any kind of source citation.I'd also be OK with a statement and citation for a significantly weaker assertion, like "there is no good evidence of rainbows having been seen before the Great Flood." That's close to vacuously true, but if a well-known published source said it—i.e. ''if something like this is widely and commonly asserted in fundamentalist/creationist circles''—I'd be OK with it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:31, 29 March 2007 (EDT)