The following comments came about due to the video titled DEBATE: Is There Reasonable Evidence for Evolution? | Kent Hovind vs. Mathew Steele.
I, Ken Ammi, noted
Mathew stated, “the Moon is not a light” really? Ever been in a forest when the Moon’s not out and then when it’s out? But, guess what, the Sun’s also not a light. Yet, they both produce or reflect light and thus, are lights in the sky.
He said, “there’s still no coherent justified Christian response to Euthyphro’s Dilemma” really? Firstly, Euthyphro’s dilemma is really a false dichotomy. Secondly, here it is: https://truefreethinker.com/video-resolving-the-euthyphro-dilemma but I’ve a feeling Matthew will just appeal to his subjective qualifier, “coherent justified” and merely assert that, sure, it’s been responded to but not to his personal satisfaction (and, BTW, his subjective personal satisfaction isn’t a standard).
It’s ironic that someone who believes that humans are accidentally existing apes stated, “to close your eyes to everything in the world that disagrees with the Bible and just label it all evolution is an insult to the intelligence of every single one of our ancestors who fought to make the world a safer, healthier, more enlightened place.” He’s also merely asserting that safer, healthier, more enlightened are some sort of standard, some sort of universal imperative rather than, say, oppression, violence, and ignorance—survival of the fittest-style—which is also perfectly in keeping with evolution.
Matthew noted, “you don’t have to…lie for a living just to keep people paying you to tell them it’s all just the work of the Devil” followed with, get this, “live that way if you like but do so honestly” LOL and then, “if holding on to superstitions helps keep the darkness at bay that’s fine” which he is forced to say (at least he’s being consistent here) since on his worldview he actually can’t condemn the Moon being said to be a light when it’s not, nor closing our eyes, nor insulting intelligence, nor lying, etc., etc., etc. thus, he debunked his own merely asserted complains.
Such is why he can impotently emote contra “snake oil from con artists and frauds and hypocrites and charlatans and idiots and thieves” but can’t actually condemn such, on his worldview.
He refers to “this giant puzzle we call reality” yet, according to his worldview reality is accidental, as is our ability to discern it, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, nor to demand that others do as either.
Abe Grey replied
You can not be serious. If your statement regarding the moon and sun is indicative of your understanding of science you are in trouble. The moon is not a light in the same way as a mirror is not a light. The moon does not produce light it reflects light. There is a big difference in the two. The sun on the other hand does indeed produce light radiating constantly from every point on its surface. This light is reflected just like a mirror off of the moon producing what is call moon glow. It is of course brighter when the moon is full on a cloudless night. Then when obscured by either the clouds or the shadow of the moon.
Ken Ammi
You moved the goal post (is there anything wrong with doing that on your worldview?): about the Moon I wrote, “Ever been in a forest when the Moon’s not out and then when it’s out?” and noted that the Moon “produce[s] or reflect[s] light” and you think it’s some sort of refutation to actually just agree with me, “The moon does not produce light it reflects light” well, that’s what I said. If you want to just argue to argue please go elsewhere.
Mathew Steele chimed in with
” But, guess what, the Sun’s also not a light. Yet, they both produce or reflect light and thus, are lights in the sky.”
Nice try, but nope. A light, as in something that produces light, doesn’t qualify the moon. By your “logic” a mirror is also a light. A reflective strip on the highway is a light. I didn’t bother reading any further, this was too much of a facepalm.
Ken Ammi
Not a nice try on your part since you merely insert a subjective definition “A light, as in something that produces light” so that has nothing to do with what I wrote.
Mathew Steele
“You moved the goal post” no, you asserted that something which reflects light is therefore a light, while I pointed out that a mirror would qualify as a light by that logic. But a mirror is not a light. The sun, however, does produce light directly. It doesn’t take a genius to see the problem there.
“is there anything wrong with doing that on your worldview?)” Seeing as I didn’t move the goal post, this is a red herring and I’m not taking the bait. My worldview is ironclad. It can’t be refuted, not by anyone. You’re welcome to try, though.
“you merely insert a subjective definition”
Definitions are subjective. That’s how language works, obviously. Dictionaries just describe the way words are used subjectively by groups of people. It’s called lexicography.
“that has nothing to do with what I wrote.”
If you think so, you’re not paying attention. I’ll be delighted to deal with the rest of your post, above, but if you’re sticking to the moon being a light, there’s not much hope for a coherent discussion.
Ken Ammi
Again, if you’re in a forest at night you know the Moon is a light just like if you’re in a dark room and someone uses a mirror to reflect light into that room from a light bulb in another room then you know that mirror is a light: this is just common parlance, it’s not an ontological discussion about waves and particles.
Is there anything wrong with red herring on your worldview?
Since “Definitions are subjective” then “red herring” means that you admit I disproved your worldview.
Mathew Steele
But a mirror is not a light. It’s a mirror.
Ken Ammi
At this point the issue is that you have reading comprehension problems: that the Moon is a light to light the night is just common parlance, you seem to be demanding that a text which has no interest in elucidating the ontology of light in terms of being wave and particle must do so in order to be accurate yet, such is simply not how linguistics, hermeneutics, communication, etc. work. Thus, we can rightly say that a mirror is a light when it’s dark and it’s reflecting waves/particles since this isn’t about the law of identify, it’s about basic level communication.
Mathew Steele
If that’s what you want to believe, I’m not going to try to stop you. Enjoy.
Ken Ammi
That’s actually the one and only thing you’d said that consistent with your worldview. Please do study up on reading comprehension including hermeneutics: these will alter you to recognize common parlance vs. highly technical elucidations.
Well, that was the end of it as no more replies were forthcoming.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.