Do creationists critically examine their own ideas (re: creationism)?

[Astrophile]

So, my thing is, if there is light apart from the Sun,why do people call it the Sun's light...and then scoff when we say the Moon's light. I get that one interaction with the light is tumultuous and spectacular (Sun), but does the less spectacular interaction of light with Moon, completely disqualify the Moon as a source (third hand maybe) of light?

I think that you have misunderstood the matter. There is not a type of light that is supernaturally created and that interacts tumultuously and spectacularly with the Sun to produce sunlight and less spectacularly with the Moon to produce moonlight. All known forms of light are produced by physical processes in ordinary matter. One of these processes is nuclear fusion in stars, including the Sun. The light of the Moon and the planets is simply reflected sunlight, not light produced by the Moon and the planets themselves.

 

[Astrophile]

As the video makes clear, the moon isn't reflecting the sun's light ... as academians say.

It is absorbing the light, then re-emitting it as diffused light.

If the moon was a mirror, then it would reflect the light.

But it isn't.

It is a moon ... so it remits captured light from the sun.

This capturing-then-remitting now makes the light the moon's property.

You are making a false distinction between specular reflection, as from a mirror, and diffuse reflection, from objects that are not mirrors. We see objects on the Earth's surface and in the atmosphere, such as hills and mountains, trees, buildings, and clouds by diffuse reflection of sunlight, and we see the Moon in the same way. There is no essential difference between this diffuse reflection and reflections in a mirror.

The Moon is heated by the Sun and emits infra-red radiation, which is invisible to our eyes. It is this invisible infra-red radiation, not visible moonlight, that, in your analogy, is the Moon's property rather than being reflected sunlight.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are making a false distinction between specular reflection, as from a mirror, and diffuse reflection, from objects that are not mirrors. We see objects on the Earth's surface and in the atmosphere, such as hills and mountains, trees, buildings, and clouds by diffuse reflection of sunlight, and we see the Moon in the same way. There is no essential difference between this diffuse reflection and reflections in a mirror.

The Moon is heated by the Sun and emits infra-red radiation, which is invisible to our eyes. It is this invisible infra-red radiation, not visible moonlight, that, in your analogy, is the Moon's property rather than being reflected sunlight.

Did you watch the video?

Why is it your post doesn't mention "proprietary light"?

 

[Kylie]

I don't mint coins; but that quarter lying on my desk is mine.

Completely different thing, AV.

Or are you suggesting that the Sun transferred ownership of the light to the moon in return for the moon providing a good/service?

Although I suspect you knew it was different the whole time...

 

[Kylie]

Your understanding of the world around you is a bit errant. You've never heard of "by the light of the moon?" You've never been outside at night?
The Bible never said the moon is a source of light.
The Bible actually says "God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars."
The Bible does not describe the reflective properties of the moon, the hydrogen conversion processes of the sun or the rotation of the oblate spheroid we live on. None of these things matter. What matters is, will you choose to follow the Lord or reject Him. Quoting arguments formulated by others will not save you from destruction. Only God's grace can do that.

The Bible says the moon is a light.

My neighbours across the way have a wall, and at certain times of the day, the sun hits that wall and the light reflects into my bathroom. Is that wall a light?

 

[Kylie]

Why would she use a reflector if no light came from its surface? Did the reflector absorb light or put light where it was needed?
You illustrate the foolishness of your argument.

She used the reflector because it redirected light that was already there.

Honestly, do you think photographers don't know how to use light?

 

[Kylie]

My question was, is the Sun created?

I don't see how the process of the sun's formation is relevant to this discussion.

The sun turns hydrogen into helium through nuclear reactions. These reactions produce energy which the sun emits as light.

Sun - transforms material into energy in the form of light.
Moon - takes light that comes from somewhere else and bounces it around.

Also, I asked if there is any light other than the light caused by the nuclear reactions of stars? You didn't answer the first question,however,you did answer the second when you mentioned the light bulb. Thanks.

Why did you even ask me the second question? Surely you already knew about light sources other than the stars...

 

[Yttrium]

The Bible says the moon is a light.

Are you criticizing Christians for not following an interpretation of the Bible that would be silly?

Personally, I'm happy that non-flat-earth Christians are fine with using semantics that don't lead to a silly assertion on the nature of the moon.

 

[Kylie]

The remains of humans have not been here very long. Probably we could not leave remains in Adam's day.

Another guess that has absolutely no support.

 

[Kylie]

Are you criticizing Christians for not following an interpretation of the Bible that would be silly?

I am saying that if a Christian decides that they want to follow an interpretation of the Bible that disagrees with an easily shown aspect of reality, then they are not apparently interested in reality.

My husband is a Christian, and he has no problem with the idea that the Bible's claim about the moon being a light is wrong.

Personally, I'm happy that non-flat-earth Christians are fine with using semantics that don't lead to a silly assertion on the nature of the moon.

Saying that the moon is a light source like the sun seems silly to me.

 

[AV1611VET]

Saying that the moon is a light source like the sun seems silly to me.

Is the moon a "she"?

Isaiah 13:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

 

[Kylie]

Is the moon a "she"?

Isaiah 13:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

Have you got anything relevant to this discussion to add?

 

[AV1611VET]

Have you got anything relevant to this discussion to add?

Yes.

Make up your mind.

Is the passage a figure of speech, or isn't it?

Either the moon gives off her light; or it's all a figure of speech?

Sounds like you want to pick and choose.

But like a good academian, you know better than to answer my thought-provoking questions.

Preferring instead, to falsely accuse me of whatever.

You and your husband are true academians.

 

[Kylie]

Yes.

Make up your mind.

Is the passage a figure of speech, or isn't it?

Either the moon gives off her light; or it's all a figure of speech?

Sounds like you want to pick and choose.

But like a good academian, you know better than to answer my thought-provoking questions.

Preferring instead, to falsely accuse me of whatever.

You and your husband are true academians.

So how do you determine if a passage from the Bible is just a figure of speech?

I mean, what do your own "boolean" standards say?

1. Bible says X, science says Ø = go with X
2. Bible says X, science says X = go with X
3. Bible says X, science says Y = go with X
4. Bible says Ø, science says Y = go with Y
5. Bible says Ø, science says Ø = speculate

In this case, we have the Bible and science saying two different things, so we go with option 3:

Bible says the moon is a lightsource, science says the moon is not a light source. Go with the Bible. Therefore, the moon is a lightsource.

And with your other comment about the moon being a she: The Bible says the moon is female, science says the moon has no gender. Go with the Bible, therefore, the moon is female.

Perhaps that is why the moon always hides one side from the Earth - since the moon doesn't wear pants, she always keep her naughty bits hidden so she doesn't get catcalled?

TL;DR: Your boolean standards do not allow for any parts of the Bible to be figures of speech.

 

[AV1611VET]

TL;DR: Your boolean standards do not allow for any parts of the Bible to be figures of speech.

Have a good day!

 

[dad]

Another guess that has absolutely no support.

Since the Almighty Personally mentioned Adam both came from and would return to dust, the bible does support it. Since science doesn't have a clue either way, they are out of the picture. More support in the bible is found for the likelihood man could not leave fossil remains in the timing and creation order given on the bible. Man was created the same time basically as other creatures, so man was here from the getgo according to God. Maybe it is time to face the fact you have no support.

 

[pitabread]

Sounds like you want to pick and choose.

Sounds like so-called literalists pick and choose.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sounds like so-called literalists pick and choose.

Did you read her post?

Specifically this:

Bible says the moon is a lightsource,

The only reason I read the rest of the post is because I was looking for an answer to my question.

If it wasn't for the Arab phone, I don't think anyone would answer my questions; but they use it to perfection.

Changing what the Bible actually says in order to try to make a point.

 

[Kylie]

Have a good day!

Sorry to hear that you don't want to explore the consequences of your boolean standards.

 

[Kylie]

Since the Almighty Personally mentioned Adam both came from and would return to dust, the bible does support it. Since science doesn't have a clue either way, they are out of the picture. More support in the bible is found for the likelihood man could not leave fossil remains in the timing and creation order given on the bible. Man was created the same time basically as other creatures, so man was here from the getgo according to God. Maybe it is time to face the fact you have no support.

Yeah, the claim doesn't count as its own support. Care to try again?