10 Questions Every Christian Needs To Answer.

[orangebox21]

The idea that a god lazily pointed to a naturally occurring thing that requires no godly sauce as a sign that he would not do again what he never did in the first place, is...to me, absurd

You're not maintaining logical consistency. If God created the properties of light, water, and the water cycle, then He created the rainbow. In other words, if He had created water, light, and the water cycle with drastically different properties then rainbows wouldn't be naturally occurring (they wouldn't exist). He then pointed to something He created, not to a 'naturally occurring thing that requires no godly sauce' as you have put it.

Of course if you reject God, then yes a rainbow is a naturally occurring thing as you have defined it. However the context of our conversation presupposes that God is the creator.

That kind of hogwash is exactly why the Bible (or any other book) should not be used as an infallible source. That it's bad science follows directly from the initial decision to try to squash all the evidence into a pattern that would fit Genesis.

Would that include books that teach the scientific method?