Basically He could have. He could have done anything. That’s what being God is. I know that the ‘order’ of the creation is not in the ‘order’ as one might suppose using modern understandings of science - such as the fact that some animals came before the plants, etc.
What I find most interesting about evolutionary educators is the amount of times they see fit to use models of directed evolution (such as breeding) to make people understand random/natural evolution - as it is supposed to occur in nature. One of the funniest is by the well-known anti-religion crank Dawkins who uses a computer simulation to show how evolution might be possible. He calls these biomorphs.
What do you mean by “make” a rainbow? Do the water droplets get together and decide to “produce” a rainbow? No, water droplets don’t “do” anything on their own, they obey the laws given them. Light passes through them and the result is a rainbow. It’s naturally occurring. “A rainbow is an optical and meteorological phenomenon that causes a nearly continuous spectrum of light to appear in the sky when the Sun shines onto droplets of moisture in the Earth’s atmosphere.” (Wikipedia)
And with what apparent age does the Bible say God endowed the elements of the earth?
I never assumed that the water decides, but you said that water droplets would make a rainbow
You specifically said “A few water molecules”
The assumption here is that the rainbow didn’t exist prior to the flood. The rebuttal from Mirdath and then you is that this is patently false, because, as you suggest, a few water molecules must have formed one before then.
Just not before the Flood?
Homunculus? Can’t say I have. What’s its relevence to this?
But our concepts of what those laws are changes.
When did you become sentient? Did you not observe things before you understood them?
So is the flying spaghetti monster.
As opposed to what other kind of scientific evidence?
I apologize; I meant, as I clarified later, that water droplets with light passing through them can cause a rainbow. That is the natural cause of a rainbow: light being diffracted through a prism. Of course, I’m not a scientist, so I might be using insufficient or inaccurate language here.
If there was rain, or waterfalls, or ocean waves hitting rocks along a beach, and there was sunlight passing through the mist, it is likely there was a rainbow.
The relevance is that we have far better understanding of the process and factors of the conception and growth of a human than we had a century or a millenium ago. Generally speaking, we understand the science (that’s a broad term, I apologize) behind a good number of natural phenomena, like rainbows, clouds, “sunrises” and “sunsets”, comets, etc.
Of course I believe my parents existed before me. I was playing devil’s advocate with that remark.
Exactly. This is one of the biggest problems with “young-earth” creationism–it is so disrespectful of God’s character. In order to accept “young-earth” creationism, one would have to think of God as almost completely deceptive. One would also have to think of God as CONTINUING to be completely deceptive, since He would have already “stacked the deck” against scientific investigation of the earth. In other words, virtually everything science discovers about the age of the Earth is already “set up” to be false–because God decided to create the universe with a deceptive “appearance” of age.
Not sure where the ‘deception’ is. Suppose when the world was a week old and man were to set out to measure the age of the earth. Would his instruments indicate one week? Further, if something were created from nothing (even if be the beginnnings of evolution), what qualities would the new material existence have, and what ‘apparent’ age? Would it not appear to have always existed, or would it be definitely decernible as to having been just created?
ID is worthless because it is a hybrid mix of theology & science - both are spoiled when put together in that way. Milk & butter don’t go well together, merely by being put together - they can be put together, but not in that way. So with theology & science - they too can be related; but not in that way. A Christological analogy would be the difference between the Hypostatic Union, & “mixing” the two natures; the Tome of Leo rejects relation by mixing, & insists that both nature retain their characteristics & properties. So with science & theology - they too retain their characteristics & properties, otherwise one ends up with the two of them being related to one another in a way that spoils both. ID implies a wonky doctrine of God, & a wonky Christology - conversely, both of these provide patterns for thinking about things other than, & less than, themselves.
It’s a will-o’-the-wisp - it looks serviceable, but it is theologically bankrupt, & destroys the very theism it is used to support.Although I asked you a question, I’m quite happy to answer you. You assume that there must have been at some point in time water in the atmosphere in sufficient quantities to form a rainbow - although you stated a ‘few molecules’ – which seems for you sufficient to form a ‘rainbow’, so you already have a different idea of the properties of water than what I do. However, God can indeed do whatever he wants with water.
The Devil need’s a better advocate because your choice of example was easily rebuffed.
It seems you wish to go no further with this.
Detecting ‘non-natural’ things would still leave the door open to finding God’s handiwork.
That’s not true at all. God is for some small part ‘knowable’ in that I can know that there is a God. However this in no way negates the fact that, in his essence he is beyond my understanding. The mere ‘detection’ of God would not lessen God.
So when the Apostles saw miracles and ‘detected’ that Jesus is God, they didn’t?
Science dominated by the philosphy of science that is materialism is okay but science dominated by a philosphy of science that’s not materialistic is bad?
Well if you -]rant/-] say so!Aside from you just saying that science and religion are different (giving an insight into you) no it doesn’t.
That’s rather an odd theory. It just assumes that whatever evidence you’ve found for an old earth must be correct because it is because any other evidence would be wrong, because it is. And God doens’t give wrong evidence !
It simply assumes one thing first and then says in effect “God wouldn’t be contradicting our findings of the evidence” because God wouldn’t do that! 
You did ask me a question, and I answered it by correcting my erroneous statement. I’m being flippant and I apologize for it.
I believe more than that – God changes bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ dozens of times a day. But He doesn’t change all bread and wine, He changes the bread and wine presented to Him on the altar in the manner prescribed by Jesus himself. It is true that bread and wine were never changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus before that first institution of the Eucharist; are you suggesting my belief in that is analogous to a belief that God “instituted” the rainbow after the Flood?
Certainly I could accept a ‘rainbow’ effect at the base of a water-fall - which is different from the ‘sign set in the sky’ which would be more dramatic.
And the rainbow was a type of covenant. Perhaps this distinuighed it from the ‘rainbow’ effect at the base of waterfalls.
But the changing of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is not a naturally occuring phenomenon, it was ordained by God that very night in Jerusalem at the hands of Jesus. It wasn’t something God adopted; rainbows, on the other hand, could have been adopted by God as a sign of the covenant.