Papal infallibility

One big mistake that many people do when they try to argue against eg. a religious or scientific position, is that they completely fail to research and understand what exactly that position actually is, so that they can give a valid objection to it. A lot of times people just assume something about the position and object to it based on those assumptions. When those assumptions are wildly incorrect, this becomes in essence an inadvertent straw-man argument (the main difference to an actual straw-man argument being that the subject matter is not being deliberately and knowingly distorted in bad faith.)

There are countless examples of this that one could list with regard to creationist arguments against the theory of evolution. However, sometimes skeptics also inadvertently engage in this same mistake when trying to argue against religion, or Christianity, or a particular Christian denomination or teaching.

One of the most commonly misunderstood and often-criticized and even mocked Catholic teachings is that of Papal Infallibility.

I have myself seen first-hand someone say in all seriousness (ie. clearly not joking) the archetypal argument of the form "if the Pope is infallible, why doesn't he play the lottery? We'll see how 'infallible' he is."

This is a complete misunderstanding and research failure of what Papal Infallibility actually is, what the Catholic Church actually teaches about it, ie. what the official doctrine is.

It's not a good idea to argue against a position you have completely misunderstood. Even if inadvertently, that just becomes a full-on straw-man argument, and it's not very constructive nor useful.

Catholic doctrine does not teach that the Pope is always infallible, without error, without mistakes, without false statements, not even without sin. Official Catholic doctrine does teach that even the Pope himself is as much a sinner as anybody else, and is capable of committing sin (for which he does need to seek forgiveness and absolution), and is very much not always correct and infallible.

What the official Catholic doctrine teaches is that when the Pope makes a particular type of official declaration ex cathedra (ie. essentially "officially from his position as the Pope") that pertains to Church doctrine, then that declaration is to be considered from God himself, and thus infallible. This kind of proclamation uses a very particular context and wording, and is very unambiguously stated as such an official Papal proclamation, for the purposes of establishing Church doctrine and catechism.

Things that the Pope says otherwise, during interviews, during conversations, even outright during sermons and mass, is not this kind of infallible ex cathedra proclamation.

Also, the vast, vast majority of people have absolutely no idea how many such proclamations Catholic Popes have given.

Perhaps a bit surprisingly, ever since the doctrine of Papal infallibility was officially established in Church canon in 1870, it has been only used once. That's it. One single time.

There have been Catholic scholars and bishops who have attempted to retroactively assign official infallibility to statements made by popes prior to 1870, but there is no officially accepted list, only allegations. After the canonization of Papal infallibility in 1870 there has been only one such officially recognized "infallible" proclamation, made in 1950 by Pope Pius XII.

That being said, even approaching the subject matter with absolute understanding and accuracy, the whole concept is not without criticism.

Take that "infallible" 1950 Papal official proclamation for instance: Pius XII officially declared that the virgin Mary directly ascended to heaven, ie. experienced a so-called assumption (ie. was directly taken to heaven, in her spiritual body, at the moment of death, exactly like happened to Jesus according to the doctrine.)

One could ask: If that's true, why did it take almost two thousand years for God to suddenly reveal this truth? And why now?

Doesn't make much sense. It sounds a lot more plausible that Pius XII just wanted to make that common belief "official" and thus just declared it officially, in order to canonize it and make it an indisputable fact.

Same goes with the canonization of the concept of papal infallibility in itself: Only in 1870? Why did it take so long? Was God withholding this information for some reason? Why did he suddenly decide in 1870 to reveal such a fundamental doctrine?

The story of Moses on Mount Sinai is incongruent

One of the most archetypal and beloved stories of the Old Testament happens after Moses has led his people out of their captivity in Egypt, when they camp at the foot of Mount Sinai, and Moses ascends to the mountain in order to receive a big bunch of commandments (including the ten famous ones) directly from God himself.

In Christianity this is considered one of the key moments of not just the Biblical narrative, but the entirety of the religion, not just because of the Ten Commandments having been given to Moses (according to the narrative), but the overall significance of the event. It is also the immediate precursor of another key event in the story that happens at the end of it, ie. the infamous Golden Calf incident (one of the most referenced and painted of all Biblical events.) The entire story is full of memorable key events that shapes the entire Old Testament narrative.

This event is often narrated in sermons, Christian events (such as youth camps), and studied in Bible study groups. Christians marvel at the events, and the sheer power of God that's described in the text.

However, not many Christians ever stop to think about some of the most incongruent details of the story. These details are (for the most part) not incongruent within this particular portion of the text, but they are highly incongruent with the overall Christian theology and narrative.

Some of the incongruities in the story include:

1) In the story, God physically descends on top of the mountain. The text (Exodus 19:16-18) says:

On the morning of the third day there was thunder and lightning, with a thick cloud over the mountain, and a very loud trumpet blast. Everyone in the camp trembled. Then Moses led the people out of the camp to meet with God, and they stood at the foot of the mountain. Mount Sinai was covered with smoke, because the Lord descended on it in fire. The smoke billowed up from it like smoke from a furnace, and the whole mountain trembled violently.

This raises a question: If God is omnipotent and omnipresent, why does he need to physically descend on top of a mountain in order to personally meet with Moses, and what's with the light and smoke show?

It is implied (and in fact outright stated later) that God needs to surround himself in very thick clouds so that the people cannot see him, as directly seeing him would mean instantaneous death. And, thus, God needs to hide himself in the cloud to protect the people. It's also implied in the text above that he is so immensely powerful that his mere physical presence causes fire, lightning and violent trembling of the ground.

More curiously, this is literally the only place in the entire Bible where God is described like this, and does something like this, and is stated to need to "hide" himself in this manner to protect people from seeing him and immediately dying. Quite notably, there are other places where it is said that God personally visits someone without such a light, smoke and ground tremor show (the clearest and most prominent example of this being when God, personally, appeared to Abraham. Not through a messenger, but literally in person.)

The narrative also implies that God is a being who can be at a particular place and do particular physical actions, such as literally physically and visibly descending on top of a mountain, and his sheer immense power causes fire, lightning and earthquakes. The text heavily implies, not just in the above passage but also later on, that it's not just to show off, to show people how powerful he is, but that it's almost like something that God can't control, and the only thing he can do in order to not immediately incinerate people to ashes is to surround himself with very thick clouds that completely cover him from view.

Christian apologists usually rationalize this by claiming that it's just symbolic: God doesn't actually have the need to physically hide himself or else everybody who sees him dies. He did it here just to indicate his presence to the people and cause awe and reverence to them, and to stop them from rushing to climb the mountain.

However, there's nothing in the text that indicates this. There is no portion of the text that explains that God only did this for show, or to deter people from approaching, or anything of the sort. Most Christians love to claim that they only interpret the Bible literally, just what it says and nothing more, yet time and again they insert their own personal interpretations into the text, they constantly "read between the lines" things that aren't said there. 

2) In the same vein, at one point Moses asks God if he could see him. What follows is consistent with the above narrative, but makes it even more incongruent with Christian theology in general.

God tells Moses that he cannot show his face because that would cause Moses immediately to die (Exodus 33:19-20):

And the Lord said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”

Again: How come an omnipotent God cannot show his face to a human, or else the human will die?

Instead, God goes through this asinine routine where Moses hides behind a rock, God covers him with his hand (apparently god has hands), and then quickly passes by and allows Moses to see a glimpse of his back.

There's nothing in the text that would indicate this to be somehow metaphorical or figurative. It is quite clear from the text that the author literally meant that God himself was literally and physically present there, he literally has hands, a backside and a face, Moses literally hid behind a rock that had a cleft through which Moses could peek through, and God literally covered him with his hand, uncovering him only briefly while physically passing by with his literal back turned towards him.

Nothing in the text indicates this being something metaphorical, or a dream, or something like that. There's nothing indicating that this is some kind of symbolism. It's narrated as being exactly what physically happened, and that it was literally required for Moses to survive.

So it once again raises the question: Why would an omnipotent omnipresent God need these theatrics?

Christian apologists try to rationalize and explain this away, but the text itself is quite clear: It is what literally physically happened, there was no other way, and it was necessary. There's no indication that God was just showing off or doing some kind of symbolic demonstration to teach a lesson or something. It is written as if it was absolutely necessary to do it like that.

And also this, quite notably, is literally the only place in the entire Bible where this kind of thing is described. Nowhere else.

3) When the infamous Golden Calf incident happens, Moses quite famously destroys the two tablets that he had, containing the original Ten Commandments (given in Exodus 20, and it's implied that also a big bunch of other commandments were written on the tablets), and after the incident has been dealt with, Moses ascends to the mountain once again, and the text quite explicitly says (Exodus 34:1):

The Lord said to Moses, “Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke.”

The fact that these new tablets contained the famous Ten Commandments is extremely explicitly and unambiguously stated after them having been listed in that chapter, in Exodus 34:27-28:

Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” Moses was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.

It couldn't be clearer than that. These are not just some random new commandments. These are the Ten Commandments, using "the words that were on the first tablets".

The problem?

The ten commandments listed between the first and 27th verses are completely different from the first Ten Commandments (the first set being the famous ones). A few of the commandments are somewhat similar to the first ones, using different wording, but the majority of them are completely different.

This is not denied by biblical scholars and most theologians, who call the first set the "Ethical Decalogue" and this second set the "Ritual Decalogue". However, the vast majority of Christian believers just ignore this contradiction.

In fact, the vast majority of Christians don't even know about this second set. There are literally people who have been avid practicing Christians for several decades who have never encountered this nor know about it. When they encounter it for the first time, they are invariably surprised. I'm not even kidding. (The most common reaction is to keep ignoring it, shoving it aside with a thought that there must be an explanation to it that they simply haven't heard.)

The actual explanation, particularly to the two first points above, is that this is most likely yet again one of those independent orally transmitted myths that at some point got incorporated into the Jewish mythology and texts.

Taking into account the details of the story, and how incongruent and contradictory it is compared to the rest of Jewish and Christian theology, it's quite clear that it was most likely a myth from another religion, or some kind of "pseudo-Jewish" myth floating around (similarly to how the myth that people become angels is widespread, even though no Christian denomination actually teaches this), which was then reworded a bit and incorporated into the Jewish canon, either by directly adapting and writing it into the scripture, or it being first adapted and told as an oral myth as part of the Jewish religion and then later written down.

Giving Kenneth Copeland the benefit of the doubt

Kenneth Copeland is one of the most hated and reviled American megachurch pastors. He is one of those "prosperity gospel" evangelical pastors who have become immensely successful and rich by preaching this form of exploitative theology. He is, indeed, a multi-millionaire who flies in his own private luxury jets and lives in multi-million-dollar mansions, not because he is the CEO of some huge company but because of donation money given to him by his followers. (And that's one of the key things that make "prosperity gospel" pastors so hated: They become super-rich without actually contributing anything to the economy or to society. They just get loads of money without helping produce or improve anything. They are, essentially, super-succcesful freeloaders.)

It doesn't exactly help that he just looks evil. Most pastors try to make themselves look as presentable and as sympathetic as possible, but not Ken. He seems to revel in his "evil villain" look.

Unsurprisingly, people just love to write articles and create videos deriding the guy. Most of the criticism is quite valid and deserved.

However, there's one very commonly cited criticism that I myself am not so sure is so legit.

In some Christian TV program he talked about why he always flew in private jets rather than commercial airplanes, and he said that the people in those airplanes are "demons". Or at least that's what the critics often like to claim.

Here's the exact quote of what he says in that interview:

"He used to fly airlines, but it got to the point where it was agitating him spiritually. He had become famous and they were wanting him to pray for them and all that. You can't manage that today. This dope filled world. You get in an airplane, you get in a long tube with a bunch of demons. And it's deadly."

In a later on-the-street interview by the show Inside Edition he was asked by the reporter if he believed that human beings are demons, and he responded very strongly:

"No, I do not! And don't you ever say I did!"

Of course most critics just think that he's lying and trying to deny what he said. However, I myself am willing to give him more of the benefit of the doubt in this particular case.

In that original interview he said that passenger airplanes are full of demons. He did not say that the people themselves are the demons. Evangelical Christians believe that the fallen angels who sided with Lucifer and were kicked out of Heaven are the demons, and angels are not people. They believe that these angels may roam the Earth and try to influence people, but they very clearly believe that angels are angels (even if fallen), and people are people, and they are two completely different things.

Some Christians may believe that people may get possessed by demons, but this varies from denomination to denomination. I have not researched the exact theology that Copeland believes in and preaches, but it may well be that he does believe that fallen angels, ie. "demons", can either fully possess, or at a very minimum influence a person so strongly that they can directly affect their behavior and thoughts (this is a relatively common belief among many American evangelical Christians.)

Either way, it doesn't really matter: American evangelical Christians, which also likely includes Kenneth Copeland, do not believe that people themselves are demons, or become demons, or anything of the sort. They can believe that demons "hover around" certain people that they have "possessed" or at least heavily influencing, and these bad spirits can be sensed by particularly sensitive Christians.

I consider it highly likely that when Copeland said "you get in a long tube with a bunch of demons", he was referring to evil spirits, ie. fallen angels, ie. "demons", to be there alongside the people, a bit like stalking them (and that sufficiently sensitive believers can sense them and be distraught by them). I highly doubt he meant that the people themselves are the demons. He was not calling the people themselves "demons".

Like or hate the guy, I don't think it's very constructive to deliberately misinterpret what he means when he speaks. 

Why did ALL non-avian dinosaurs go extint, but not all reptiles?

Quite famously dinosaurs were the dominant clade on Earth for over 150 million years, which for animal species is a very, very long time (for example hominids have "only" existed for about 6 million years, apes even less than that, humans even less). Also quite famously not only did all non-avian dinosaurs go extinct, but they all did so in a quite short period of time in a single mass extinction event. (And yes, they did indeed go extinct surprisingly quickly all at once. In mere years, perhaps even less. It was absolutely catastrophic and devastating.)

A curious mind could ask: How come all of the thousands and thousands non-avian dinosaur species that existed 65 million years ago went extinct, while many reptile species survived (alongside many mammal species, etc)? This completely regardless of dinosaur type, size, eating habits, etc.

Many people often throw the guess that it was because of their sheer size, but they forget that there were literally hundreds if not thousands of dinosaur species that were very small, the size of a dog, some even the size of a chicken. Why did all of them go extinct too, while much bigger reptiles (such as crocodiles) survived? Likewise they went extinct regardless of whether they were carnivorous, herbivorous or omnivorous. It was definitely not about their size nor their diet.

Many conspiracy theorists, some young-earth creationists, and many other wackos, use this apparent paradox to claim that dinosaurs didn't actually exist, or similar silly theories (rather than actually trying to find out the reason.)

But it is indeed curious: Why did all of them (except the avian ones) go extinct? Every single species of dinosaur, without fail. This, while at the same time, many species of reptiles survived. How come the extinction event was this thorough but selective?

As you might surmise, the answer lies in how dinosaurs were different from other reptiles (and eg. mammals). While they are cladistically classified as "reptiles" that doesn't mean that they were identical to other reptiles.

While the full set of reasons why they went extinct is quite large and varied, ie. it was a combination of many things, their physical characteristics, their physiology, was a very crucial one. The characteristics that made them different from other reptiles (especially those that survived).

You see, most reptiles are cold-blooded, while dinosaurs (all of them) were mesothermic. They also quite crucially had a much higher metabolism rate than most other reptiles. (And this is, in fact, why so many dinosaur species were so incredibly fast-running apex predators, especially many of the theropod species.)

This meant, among other things, that they needed significantly more food than their non-dinosaur reptile cousins (most of which could go literally weeks without eating anything). And this is one of the crucial key characteristics that made them different from most other reptiles.

In a way, dinosaurs were extremely adapted and specialized for the Mesozoic environment: They were big, they were fast, they were strong, they were apex predators, they were capable of defending themselves (even if herbivorous). They were the pinnacles of the Mesozoic era. The top tier.

The problem with this is that this strength was also their weakness: The Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event suddenly, completely and radically changed the environment in a way that made it completely unsuitable for the highly-specialized dinosaurs. Suddenly their fast metabolism became a liability rather than an asset. Suddenly their need for a constant supply of food became a deadly defect rather than a strength.

Of course this isn't the only reason why they suddenly became incapable of surviving in the changed environment (another one is that regardless of their fast metabolism, their reproduction cycle was really slow, which was also a liability after the extinction event), but it was one of the most crucial ones.

This explains why they all died, while many other reptiles survived: Those other reptiles had slower metabolisms, were cold-blooded, and did not require such a constant supply of food to survive. They also usually reproduced much faster.

From the dinosaurs, only birds survived, but that's because they could compensate their now-weaknesses with their unique ability of flight (and small size, feathers, and a relatively fast reproductive cycle).

The question of why all non-avian dinosaurs went extinct all of a sudden is actually a very interesting one. Too bad that many conspiracy theorists don't care. 

The Shroud of Turin is ridiculously and obviously fake

I find it a bit curious how seriously so many people, even many atheists and skeptics, take the Shroud of Turin. Obviously most skeptics don't believe that it represents the body of Jesus himself and instead it originates from the Middle Ages (with carbon dating putting it somewhere in the 1300's, give or take), but they still don't seem to have much problem or skepticism in believing that it's likely a real impression of a real body (although, to be fair, there are also those who believe that it's just a hand-made painting and nothing more.)

It's actually a bit unbelievable how many people believe that it's the actual real impression of a real human body, given how obviously fake it is.

As a side note (and somewhat unrelated to how obviously fake it is), the vast, vast majority of people don't even know what the entire cloth looks like and how the impressions are placed on it. The entire original cloth looks like this:

If it was covering a body, it would mean that the body was laying on top of it on one half, and then it was folded over his head on top of him, like a blanket.

Most people think that the shroud was actually wrapping the body, but it's quite obvious that it wasn't. Even if it was covering a real body, it was just laying flat on a surface, like a sheet, with the body on top of it, and the upper half folded over to cover it, like a blanket. The shroud was not wrapping the body.

This is, rather obviously, not under dispute, as it's extremely obvious from the shroud. It's just curious how few people know and understand this, and instead assume that the cloth was wrapping the body tightly.

Likewise few people are wondering what exactly are the human-shaped stains made of. They rather obviously assume it's blood, but they don't stop to think how unrealistic that is. It would mean that the body would have been completely covered, from head to toe, all of it, in fresh blood, at least fresh enough to permanently stain the cloth.

Believers in the authenticity of the cloth, and Jesus himself, never stop to think how impossible that is. According to the scriptures Jesus was kept on the cross after his death for several hours at minimum. Blood coagulates quite quickly and doesn't stay fresh for that long.

Also, at which point was this cloth used? Most people assume that it was probably used to wrap Jesus's body in the tomb. They forget that according to the narrative his body was washed before putting it in the tomb. Thus, even if we were to entertain the idea that this was used to wrap the body of the real Jesus, at which point did this happen? It would have been several hours after his death, after he had been taken down and his body transported somewhere else.

Analysis of the stain appear to strongly suggest that, at a very minimum, the original stains were enhanced and expanded using a mixture of red ochre and a gelatin medium, which was a common paint in the Middle Ages. While some experts dispute this, I think that it's pretty much certain.

But none of this makes the shroud "ridiculously and obviously fake". Even if it's from the medieval period rather than two thousand years ago, it could still be genuine in the sense that it was used to cover the real body of someone.

Let's examine more closely why it's ridiculously and obviously fake. In particular, let's examine the face:

This is a picture of the stains on the original cloth, and a digitally enhanced version of its negative, which emphasizes the details in the original.

Am I seriously expected to believe that a cloth placed on top of someone's face, said face covered in something (supposedly blood), is going to leave that many intricate details on the cloth? Eyelids perfectly lined, the sides of the nose perfectly lined and shaded, lips, moustache perfectly delineated, eyebrows and forehead perfectly shaded, cheeks perfectly delineated and shaded, and somehow long hair (apparently also soaked in blood?) leaving just the perfect impression on the cloth, all the way from the top of the head to the tips near the neck, not spread out, apparently not affected by gravity, no gaps, nothing? Are you seriously telling me that even the eyelashes of the closed eyes left a distinct impression in the cloth? That the gap between the bottom of the eyelids and the cheeks got so perfectly impressed into the cloth?

Also note the differences in shading, in how dark the stains are. The digitally enhanced image emphasizes this, but if you examine the original closely, you can see the different shades of darker and lighter areas there as well. Am I seriously supposed to believe that a cloth placed on top of a face (apparently soaked in blood for some reason) is going to leave these differently-shaded stains on the cloth, with for example the cheeks gently fading from darker to lighter, as if the face had been illuminated from above? Am I seriously supposed to believe that the nose has just the perfect shading, as if it had been illuminated from above and slightly from the right? Am I seriously supposed to believe that the underside of the eyebrows are perfectly shaded as if the face had been illuminated from above?

This is so obviously painted by hand that it isn't even funny.

The rest of the body isn't much better, although the face is the epitome of how obviously fake this is, because of all the minute tiny details that would absolutely not be that detailed if it had just been a sheet of cloth placed on top of a face covered in blood. You can even see individual fingers, and parts of the body that would not have been touched by the cloth if it had just been placed on top of it.

There are many other problems that can be pointed out as well, such as for example the curious fact that even though the entire body was supposedly covered in blood, there are literally zero signs of this blood dripping to the back part of the cloth. Apparently all this fresh blood, so fresh that it could paint the cloth, did not flow and drip to the part of the cloth that was under the body.

Curiously and funnily, the fact that the shroud includes the part that was under the body is a clear testament that the body was quite clearly not soaked in blood, or any other substance that would flow and drip onto that section that was supposedly under the body.

It is very likely that someone deliberately created the cloth. It might have been a deliberate hoax, or it might have been for genuine purposes, like a so-called death mask (assuming it was created from a real body and not a statue). It's quite clear that whoever created it painted the body with some paint and then put the cloth on top of it and pressed it against it in order to create the impressions, and then extremely likely retouched the end result to enhance the details.

Either way, it should be extremely obvious that it was a deliberate painting, even if it was based on a real body, not just a cloth placed on top of a dead body that just somehow miraculously happened to get such a perfect impression of the body.

And, rather obviously, given that it is quite clearly either a "death mask" of sorts, or some kind of deliberate hoax, it cannot be from the body of Jesus (assuming he even existed in the first place.) 

"Objective" vs "subjective" morality

Many Christian apologists argue that God's statutes (laid out in the Bible, of course) are "objective morality" and thus universally true and perfect, and they argue against "subjective morality" pretty much considering it ethically abhorrent (because, according to them, it would justify people doing whatever evil they want.)

There are many things wrong with this argument, and their very definitions of these concepts. Here are the two major ones:

Firstly, they don't seem to understand what "objective" means. When they talk about "objective morality" in this context, they seem to think that "objective" is something similar to a law of physics: In other words, something that's an absolute and inherent immutable feature of our reality, and is so completely regardless of us, something that would be true even if we (or any living being whatsoever) existed at all. A bit like the law of gravitation, or the law of electric charge: These exist in this universe completely regardless of anything, and are hard immutable characteristics of it, ie. they are laws of physics.

That's not what "objective" means. If you look at any dictionary definition, in this context "objective" means "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased."

In other words, an "objective moral" is not something that's an inherent part of the properties of this universe that exists independently for us and is always the identically the same everywhere at all times regardless of anything. It's simply a moral that's not based on feelings, emotions and biased interpretations, but instead it's arguably based on unbiased interpretation of hard facts.

The thing is: Two different incompatible sets of morals can both be "objective", and there is no contradiction in this. "Objective" does not mean "universal", in other words, inherently and by necessity exactly the same for everybody, regardless of anything. "Objective" means that it's based on unbiased interpretation of facts rather than the result of personal feelings and subjective interpretations. Different things can be factually true for different cultures, for example based on their geographical location, geographic features, the environment, the local culture, and the history of the culture. For example, it can be factually true that the place suffers from yearly floods, and this may shape the moral code of the people living there. In a completely different place it may be factually true that they suffer from regular drought, and this also shapes the moral code of the people living there, and these two moral codes may be different and in some ways even incompatible, because they apply to that particular people in that particular place. Both can be a fully objective set of morals without any subjectivity: It's just that those morals are dictated by different facts caused by the different circumstances.

"Objective morality" is not by necessity universal, the exact same everywhere regardless of anything. Different (and even incompatible) sets of morals can both be "objective" at the same time. There is no contradiction here.

Secondly, these Christian apologists always contrast the two options at their most extreme: In other words, their argument is that either there is a strict set of objective morality that's universal, strict, immutable and the same for everybody, or alternatively there's "subjective morality" which, according to them, means that anybody can do whatever they want without any limits whatsoever. That's it. Those are the two only options. There's nothing in between.

This is a false dichotomy.

Morality does not work that way. In actual reality there are degrees of objectiveness / subjectiveness when it comes to ethics and morality. It's a gradation. It's not a situation where there are only two possibilities and, particularly, those two options are the absolute extremes and nothing else.

This is the reason why, for example, most laws in most countries dictate a range of possible punishments for crimes. While "guilty" vs "not guilty" may be a true dichotomy when it comes to the legal system, the punishment if found guilty is usually a gradation, with minimum and maximum sentences. The actual sentence is chosen according to the severity of the crime. In other words, how wrong and harmful the action was. It may have been objectively wrong, but its severity may vary. There aren't only two extreme options: Either let the accused to free, or always inflict maximum punishment.

"Objective morality", as these Christians wrongly define it, would require only those two options to be viable: Either not guilty, or maximum punishment. Nothing in between.

Even in non-legal settings morality is a gradation, not just a dichotomy of two extremes. There are always degrees of how "right" or "wrong" something is. For example pushing someone may be very wrong in some circumstances, a bit reproachable but not completely despicable in others, and completely acceptable and even a good action in others (for example if it saves someone's life.) Context always matters.

And yes, there is a lot of morality that's up to subjective feelings and interpretations. It can be considered highly improper to exhibit bad manners and bad behavior in certain situations, but how "wrong" it is, that's often up to personal opinion and customs. There are genuinely things where the "wrongness" of some action is very much up to personal opinion and personal preferences, and thus being highly subjective.

With most actions, however, the degree of "objectiveness" of how "wrong" they are is much more of a gradation. The "wrongness" of some actions are more up to opinion, with other actions it's more objective, and there are enough things that humans can do to fill up the entire line from one end to the other. The line where actions become so wrong that even laws have to be passed to criminalize them is, perhaps ironically, a mix of objectivity and, to certain degree, also subjectivity, depending a bit on the local culture and customs. And that is, as mentioned before, where the severity of the punishment kicks in, with "minimum" and "maximum" sentences that can vary quite wildly.

The "Kent Hovind"-style challenge

Kent Hovind has for several decades been rather infamous for not only being a Christian young-earth creationist activist, who has made an entire video series of presentations about his wacky theories as well as making thousands of YouTube videos where he repeats the same things over and over, but more prominently because of his egregiously smug and condescending attitude towards "atheists" and anybody who disagrees with him.

Say what you like about apologists like William Lane Craig (who is the King of Sophistry, to the extreme degree), Ken Ham and others like them, at least they know how to maintain a modicum of politeness and good manners, regardless of how wrong what they say may be. Not Kent Hovind: He is extremely smug, condescending and egregiously patronizing when talking about "atheists" and their arguments. So very Christian of him.

Anyway, he is also somewhat famous for his "evolution challenge": At least in the past (I don't know if currently) he promised to pay 10 thousand dollars (or whatever the sum was) to anybody who can give him any "proof of evolution".

This challenge is very easy and safe for him to present. That's because it has two main problems:

Firstly, a bit of a more minor problem is that he has never specified (and quite deliberately so) the conditions for the "proofs" presented to him. He has never explained what he will accept as valid "proof" and what he won't.

The problem with this is that it leaves the judging of the validity of the presented proof completely open, up to the whims of whoever is judging, with no clearly defined parameters under which such a proof will be considered valid. It will be completely up to the whims of whoever is judging.

Which brings up to the second and absolutely major problem in the challenge:

Who will be judging whether a presented "proof" is valid, and thus earns the 10 thousand dollars? Well, what do you know, Kent Hovind himself, of course.

Indeed, he himself is the only and sole person judging the validity of the presented "proof", and his word is the final verdict, regardless of anything. Thus, he simply has to reject the proof, regardless of what it is, and what do you know, he doesn't need to pay. That's it. It's that simple. He doesn't even need to present any counter-argument or explain why he is rejecting the proof: He can simply reject it, and he doesn't have to pay, under his own self-imposed rules of the "challenge".

And, indeed, he has a stock answer to almost every single "proof" presented to him, which he almost always gives as a stock response: "That's not evolution."

It doesn't matter what the presented proof is, he just has to answer "that's not evolution", and he doesn't need to pay. Under his perspective the "challenge" was once again lost by the "evolutionist". Obviously he can then go ahead and boast about how his "challenge" has never been broken, and how "nobody can present a single proof of evolution." Which he does constantly.

Of course he never talks about the fact that he himself is the only and sole judge deciding whether his "challenge" has been broken or not.

Unsurprisingly, he is not the only one engaging in this exact type of easy and safe "challenge". Many other creationists, conspiracy theorists, flat earthers, and other such people have also presented the exact same "challenge": Provide proof that their claims are false and you earn X thousand dollars. Problem is, of course, that it's the issuer of the challenge who all alone will be the sole judge of whether the proof is valid or not. Thus, the challenge is very safe to issue: The challenger will never have to pay up because he can just dismiss any proof presented to him.

And then he can go ahead and boast about how nobody can prove he is wrong and nobody has ever won the challenge.