Photograph by Debbie Garelick.
Rainbow. The rainbow is formed from relatively nearby raindrops. It is evidently raining lightly, because you can see a light cloud cover behind the rainbow. Direct backscatter from the clouds probably accounts for much of the brightness of the sky inside the arc and helps make a dramatic picture. See also here.
14 Comments
Just Bob · 1 February 2016
Let's see if Floyd wants to defend the Bible's silly just-so rainbow story this time: Were there no rainbows before the flood? If not, explain how that could be. Do rainbows exist IN clouds, as the Bible says, or in clear air with falling rain, maybe with clouds in the background? Why did god need rainbows to remind HIMSELF not to make another genocidal flood?
Matt Young · 1 February 2016
Please do not bait the trolls.
DavidK · 1 February 2016
What is particularly interesting is that if the rainbow is situated in the viewers line of sight just right and the intensity of the sunlight also just right, one can observe secondary rainbows, and maybe tertiary rainbows. A splendid sight indeed.
Matt Young · 2 February 2016
We ran a photo of a secondary rainbow 2 weeks ago. Note that the sky behind the photographer is clear, and it is not raining at her location. Presumably it is raining fairly heavily a relatively short distance away, so the weaker, secondary bow is visible. The rainbow, incidentally, is not "in" the cloud (Genesis 9:13-16), as Mr. Bob hints, but rather well in front of it.
Just Bob · 2 February 2016
Matt Young said:
Please do not bait the trolls.
Isn't challenging creationist memes pretty much what PT is about? ;-)
Matt Young · 2 February 2016
Isnât challenging creationist memes pretty much what PT is about? ;-)
One of the things, surely. But I do not think that is the same as baiting him. Creationists who proffer the same old crap over and over hijack enough threads; no point inviting them. What do other readers think?
phhht · 2 February 2016
Matt Young said:
Isnât challenging creationist memes pretty much what PT is about? ;-)
One of the things, surely. But I do not think that is the same as baiting him. Creationists who proffer the same old crap over and over hijack enough threads; no point inviting them. What do other readers think?
Maybe you could define "baiting," Matt. Give some examples of challenges to creationist memes which are not "baiting", and thus are welcome in your threads.
Matt Young · 2 February 2016
Maybe you could define âbaiting,â Matt. Give some examples of challenges to creationist memes which are not âbaitingâ, and thus are welcome in your threads.
Sure, that is easy. Merriam-Webster defines "to bait" as "to try to make (someone) angry by using criticism or insults" and further that "to bait" implies "wanton cruelty or delight in persecuting a helpless victim."
Thus, not baiting: "I noticed that the rainbow is formed from nearby raindrops and is not a fixture attached to the clouds, as a literal reading of Genesis might imply."
Baiting: "Come on, Fraud, what does your silly Bible have to say about the location of the rainbow? It is not in the clouds; it is in nearby raindrops."
I am assuming that you wanted a serious answer and were not baiting me.
phhht · 2 February 2016
Matt Young said:
Maybe you could define âbaiting,â Matt. Give some examples of challenges to creationist memes which are not âbaitingâ, and thus are welcome in your threads.
Sure, that is easy. Merriam-Webster defines "to bait" as "to try to make (someone) angry by using criticism or insults" and further that "to bait" implies "wanton cruelty or delight in persecuting a helpless victim."
Thus, not baiting: "I noticed that the rainbow is formed from nearby raindrops and is not a fixture attached to the clouds, as a literal reading of Genesis might imply."
Baiting: "Come on, Fraud, what does your silly Bible have to say about the location of the rainbow? It is not in the clouds; it is in nearby raindrops."
I am assuming that you wanted a serious answer and were not baiting me.
You suggest that I am trying to make you angry by using criticism or insults. I certainly intended neither. Nor did I employ wanton cruelty or delight in persecuting a helpless victim.
Who's baiting who?
It's a lot like beauty, isn't it, in that much lies in the eye of the perceiver.
Just Bob · 2 February 2016
Well, the creationists don't seem to be biting on my bait... so either there are none in the water, or they don't want to touch that bait.
Next time I'll try live shrimp. Flounder can't resist.
Mike Elzinga · 2 February 2016
Matt Young said:
Isnât challenging creationist memes pretty much what PT is about? ;-)
One of the things, surely. But I do not think that is the same as baiting him. Creationists who proffer the same old crap over and over hijack enough threads; no point inviting them. What do other readers think?
I think Panda's Thumb has the right attitude toward the creationist trolls who have kept on repeating the same taunts for, literally, years; send them to the Bathroom Wall where they can be mauled by those who love to maul these critters.
It would not be too cool to have PT ending up like Uncommon Descent or its mirror image, The Skeptical Zone. Those places have become places of sheer, predictable sophomoric squabbling over petty slights.
harold · 3 February 2016
Matt Young said:
Maybe you could define âbaiting,â Matt. Give some examples of challenges to creationist memes which are not âbaitingâ, and thus are welcome in your threads.
Sure, that is easy. Merriam-Webster defines "to bait" as "to try to make (someone) angry by using criticism or insults" and further that "to bait" implies "wanton cruelty or delight in persecuting a helpless victim."
Thus, not baiting: "I noticed that the rainbow is formed from nearby raindrops and is not a fixture attached to the clouds, as a literal reading of Genesis might imply."
Baiting: "Come on, Fraud, what does your silly Bible have to say about the location of the rainbow? It is not in the clouds; it is in nearby raindrops."
I am assuming that you wanted a serious answer and were not baiting me.
At one level I strongly agree that we should strive to leave the insulting language to the creationists. Creationists themselves are expert at baiting; it's one of their favorite techniques. They do it to "equalize". If they can create an impression that "both sides are unreasonable and resort to insults" they mask the logical flaws in their own arguments.
Back when creationists did routinely challenge science on PT, each new one usually announced himself with a baiting comment loaded with insults, false accusations, and threats.
I looked at Just Bob's comments and the only "baiting" part I could find was -
the Bibleâs silly just-so rainbow story
This is pretty mild but "the Genesis explanation of rainbows" probably would have worked just as well.
Just Bob also correctly noted -
Well, the creationists donât seem to be biting on my bait⦠so either there are none in the water, or they donât want to touch that bait.
Next time Iâll try live shrimp. Flounder canât resist.
Many years ago, more or less concurrent with the Dover decision, and probably because of what happened in Dover, unofficial word went out in the ID/creationist community to avoid civil, uncensored disputation with science defenders. It may even just have been mutual recognition of a situation. The "movement creationists" who get the message largely restrict themselves to venues where pro-science comments are deleted and the accounts that posted them banned.
My take is that the goal is to create the impression, for donors, that science is being devastatingly rebutted, and not to allow donors to see that the "experts" they fund do poorly in fair situations where both sides can express their ideas. That's just my take, of course. I could be wrong about the motivation.
In some other venues, like Reddit/r/evolution, you'll find would-be pro-science people getting things about evolution wrong, sometimes with creationist-like resistance to feedback.
But creationists themselves now mainly post on heavily censored sites. This hypothetically leads to the situation that they are misrepresenting statements made by an individual, say Ken Miller, Jeremy Coyne, Judge Jones, or some such person, and that person themselves cannot clarify their own position, because their comments will be deleted and their account banned if they try.
Matt Young · 3 February 2016
You suggest that I am trying to make you angry by using criticism or insults. I certainly intended neither. Nor did I employ wanton cruelty or delight in persecuting a helpless victim.
No, sorry, I must not have been clear. You often bait and insult trolls like FL, not me. Just Bob's baiting was mild, but still he was inviting a discussion that we did not need.
14 Comments
Just Bob · 1 February 2016
Let's see if Floyd wants to defend the Bible's silly just-so rainbow story this time: Were there no rainbows before the flood? If not, explain how that could be. Do rainbows exist IN clouds, as the Bible says, or in clear air with falling rain, maybe with clouds in the background? Why did god need rainbows to remind HIMSELF not to make another genocidal flood?
Matt Young · 1 February 2016
Please do not bait the trolls.
DavidK · 1 February 2016
What is particularly interesting is that if the rainbow is situated in the viewers line of sight just right and the intensity of the sunlight also just right, one can observe secondary rainbows, and maybe tertiary rainbows. A splendid sight indeed.
Matt Young · 2 February 2016
We ran a photo of a secondary rainbow 2 weeks ago. Note that the sky behind the photographer is clear, and it is not raining at her location. Presumably it is raining fairly heavily a relatively short distance away, so the weaker, secondary bow is visible. The rainbow, incidentally, is not "in" the cloud (Genesis 9:13-16), as Mr. Bob hints, but rather well in front of it.
Just Bob · 2 February 2016
Matt Young · 2 February 2016
phhht · 2 February 2016
Matt Young · 2 February 2016
phhht · 2 February 2016
Just Bob · 2 February 2016
Well, the creationists don't seem to be biting on my bait... so either there are none in the water, or they don't want to touch that bait.
Next time I'll try live shrimp. Flounder can't resist.
Mike Elzinga · 2 February 2016
harold · 3 February 2016
Matt Young · 3 February 2016
Marilyn · 7 February 2016
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35496350?SThisFB