I clicked on the first link and noticed a problem with the first point therein. Loftus said,
…We now have better natural explanations of the existing phenomena. They explain more without recourse to the ad hoc theories that supernatural explanations offer believers…
…with evolution we no longer need a creator, for there is nothing left to explain by means of the supernatural hypothesis. Completely obliterated is the literal Genesis account of origins…
Your response:
Evolution nullifies the need for a Creator? Get real. Evolution explains the diversity of biological life, and regardless of how many years life has been evolving for, Darwin’s TENS is limited in scope: it purports to explain the diversity of biological life. On John’s view, there are still another 10,000,000,000+ years of pre-evolutionary existence that need to be explained. How does Darwin’s theory of evolution explain that?
Loftus was clearly not saying that the Theory of Evolution applies to the period when the Earth did not exist. He is clearly referring to “the literal Genesis account of origins” no longer being necessary or viable in light of our knowledge of evolution.
Instead of taking the plain meaning of Loftus’ words, you twisted them into the absurd notion that evolution explains the entire universe, and then called that “raw, unadulterated, misleading ignorance”. Which it would be, if Loftus had made such a ridiculous claim. Of course, he did not.
Instead of taking the plain meaning of Loftus’ words, you twisted them into the absurd…
Nonsense. I took Loftus’ words at face value. The problem is that Loftus is either too imprecise and inarticulate to write what he should have, or too short-sighted and unintelligent to realize the ramifications of his own statement. I’m not sure which applies. A careful, honest writer would have clarified their claim. They would have said something like this, with the improvements in bold (and notice the improvements are for clarity and not brevity):
“with evolution we no longer need a creator to explain the diversity of biological life, for there is nothing left with regard to biological life to explain by means of the supernatural hypothesis. However, there is still plenty left to explain with recourse to a supernatural agent, for example the existence of the universe itself.“
…but that’s not what John said, is it? No. Loftus misleads those with the inability to see through his terribly imprecise claim. Loftus misleads them to believe that there is *NOTHING* left to explain. See that? He said *NOTHING* period, and that *IS* raw, unadulterated misleading ignorance. It’s not my fault the man writes with the precision of a 2×4 when a pencil is needed.
Moreover, it’s not just with regard to the universe that John’s claim is wrong. The evolutionary hypothesis—even if we grant it 100% true—doesn’t take away the need for a Creator. All the existing debate and arguments about kinesis apply. Does John inform his readers thus? No.
So, apologize for him all you want, but you’ll impress me more once you stop trying to get a “gotcha” and stop playing partisan atheist nonsense. Let me see you criticize your own side, because there’s plenty to criticize in those links.
cl, I am quite surprised that you are defending this, as it’s a straightforward case. I expected a response along the lines of, “Yeah, that was off.”
How could anyone claim that evolution applies to the time before the Earth even existed? That doesn’t make a wit of sense.
It’s doubly nonsensical because Loftus says “the literal Genesis account” in the very next sentence. There’s no question as to what he’s talking about.
Furthermore (as if there needs to be a furthermore), this is in the context of natural explanations replacing supernatural ones. That is, evolution replacing creationism.
Step back a moment and take a deep breath. Let go of the urge to engage in apologetics no matter what the cost. Now, what you said was off, right?
It’s doubly nonsensical because Loftus says “the literal Genesis account” in the very next sentence. There’s no question as to what he’s talking about.
Correct. There is no question now, and there was no question then. Did you finish my paragraph in the original essay? If you did, why didn’t you notice where I wrote, Loftus makes it clear that his argument is in the context of Darwin’s TENS?
Read that again, then let it sink in: that sentence is undeniable *PROOF* that I understood the context Loftus sought to establish. You’re reading me, and hearing something like, “cl’s twisting this to say Loftus is claiming TENS can account for all existence.” No, I’m not. That’s why I was careful to include my acknowledgement of Loftus’ desired context—a fact which should render your criticism void.
So next time you think you know what I mean, why don’t you ask? This is the third time you’ve judged me as coming from bad faith, not because of any point I actually made, but because of your own misunderstandings of points I’ve made.
There is literally nothing I can do to make you see. I’ve tried, several times with you. You are bent on seeing what you want to see, and I simply can’t do anything about it. You leap to conclusions, you don’t ask or seek to understand. You just point and shoot. It’s terribly old already.
Now, unless you want to ask some questions and actually have a legitimate conversation, I’m over it. Gone are the days when I give atheists countless chances. Ball’s in your court. If your next response displays the same sort of faulty assumptions and lack of charity as your others, I’m not even going to respond.
cl, I am not addressing your understanding, but the fallacy of your argument. This is what I said, with bold added:
How could anyone claim that evolution applies to the time before the Earth even existed? That doesn’t make a wit of sense.
Ergo, nobody could possibly claim that evolution applies to the time before the Earth even existed. That’s nonsense. Ergo, Loftus isn’t claiming that. Ergo, when he says, “with evolution we no longer need a creator,” he is not referring to the pre-Earth period (and earlier I mentioned two additional reasons for that conclusion). However you are “rebutting” Loftus as if he was referring to a pre-Earth creator. That’s your mistake, attacking that ridiculous straw man.
You quote yourself in what you imagine to be some revelatory moment for me,
Loftus makes it clear that his argument is in the context of Darwin’s TENS.
however that only underscores my point. That you understood that Loftus was referring to biological evolution makes you more responsible, not less, for arguing so fallaciously.
To recap: nobody, including you, could possibly think that Loftus was referring to a pre-Earth creator. Therefore your argument that he was referring to a pre-Earth creator is wrong:
Evolution nullifies the need for a Creator? Get real. Evolution explains the diversity of biological life, and regardless of how many years life has been evolving for, Darwin’s TENS is limited in scope: it purports to explain the diversity of biological life. On John’s view, there are still another 10,000,000,000+ years of pre-evolutionary existence that need to be explained. How does Darwin’s theory of evolution explain that? No retreating to “cosmic evolution” or any other ad hoc variant, either: Loftus makes it clear that his argument is in the context of Darwin’s TENS. At best, Loftus’ conclusion is thousands of miles away from his premises.
Ergo, nobody could possibly claim that evolution applies to the time before the Earth even existed. That’s nonsense.
Yes, I agree. That’s why the whole rest of your comment is completely irrelevant: That’s why, in the original post, I *CLARIFIED* that I was not claiming that Loftus was claiming evolution applies to the time before the Earth even existed (hence the line, ‘no retreating to cosmic evolution). Do you get it yet?
Therefore your argument that he was referring to a pre-Earth creator is wrong:
Again: I did not make any such argument. I did not argue that Loftus was referring to a pre-Earth creator. If you cannot acknowledge this and meet me on the terms of my own argument, as opposed to your twisted rendition of it, we are at an impasse.
Actually, I need to clarify one thing: I agree that nobody could posit biological evolution as applying to the time before Earth existed. There are plenty of people who invoke cosmic evolution.
cl, so we agree that Loftus clearly wasn’t referring to a pre-Earth creator when he said, “with evolution we no longer need a creator”. And we agree that you didn’t think he was referring to a pre-Earth creator.
How, then, do we square that with what you said in the paragraph I quoted?
Evolution nullifies the need for a Creator? Get real…
You are clearly referring to a pre-Earth creator in that paragraph. For instance in reference to pre-evolutionary existence you ask, “How does Darwin’s theory of evolution explain that?” But we agree that Loftus wasn’t claiming that evolution explains the pre-Earth period.
And what exactly is the “raw, unadulterated, misleading ignorance”?
You appear to be saying that if we ignore the plain meaning of his words, and ignore the plain context of those words, and ignore the plain logic of what those words can possibly mean, then the phrase “with evolution we no longer need a creator” alone — stripped of plain meaning, context, and logic — is “raw, unadulterated, misleading ignorance”. Is that your argument?
To be absolutely explicit:
Plain meaning: Loftus says in the very next sentence, “Completely obliterated is the literal Genesis account of origins…” That is, evolution replacing creationism.
Plain context: Loftus opened with, “We now have better natural explanations of the existing phenomena. They explain more without recourse to the ad hoc theories that supernatural explanations offer believers.” That is, evolution replacing creationism.
Plain logic of what words could possibly mean: It doesn’t even make sense to say that evolution refers to the pre-Earth period.
Okay. You’re at least asking questions instead of just repeating yourself and blathering on about charity. I can work with that.
…so we agree that Loftus clearly wasn’t referring to a pre-Earth creator when he said, “with evolution we no longer need a creator”. And we agree that you didn’t think he was referring to a pre-Earth creator.
Yes, that is, and has been, absolutely correct.
How, then, do we square that with what you said in the paragraph I quoted?
I don’t have to advance the argument, “Loftus believes evolution can explain pre-Earth phenomena” in order to falsify the claim, “because of evolution, there’s nothing left to explain.” Even if we grant that the contemporary evolutionary narrative is true—which is a total leap of faith IMHO—John’s claim of “nothing left to explain” remains false. There are two ways in which we can interpret Loftus’ statement. One is that evolution means a Creator is no longer necessary, en total. The other is that evolution means a Creator is no longer necessary, in order to explain the existence of life. My argument is that John’s claim remains false regardless of context.
Now, obviously you’re not going to agree with me that the contemporary evolutionary narrative is a leap of faith, or that John’s claim is false in both contexts—I will flesh those out once I’m confident you understand everything up to this point. Are you with me so far? If not, let me know what needs clarification.
Because Cowboy Hat Guy is more popular. Because Cowboy Hat Guy literally has throngs of devotees who have been duped into accepting crap as philosophy. People are abandoning their faith because of Cowboy Hat Guy. If I expose the vapidity of Cowboy Hat Guy’s “arguments” then maybe, just maybe some of his devotees will begin to think critically about Cowboy Hat Guy.
cl, you congratulate me for asking questions, but you didn’t answer them.
(1) We agree that Loftus was not claiming that evolution applies to pre-evolutionary existence, so why, in reference to pre-evolutionary existence, did you ask, “How does Darwin’s theory of evolution explain that?”
(2) What exactly is the “raw, unadulterated, misleading ignorance”? Is it the phrase “with evolution we no longer need a creator…” stripped of context? Loftus is referring to evolution superseding creationism. Are you interpreting the phrase to mean something else?
cl, you congratulate me for asking questions, but you didn’t answer them.
Uh, didn’t you read where I said I would answer the questions once you affirmed or disaffirmed that you understood everything said in the last comment? I don’t want to answer your questions until I’m sure we’re on the same page. Are we on the same page WRT everything I said in my last comment, or not? Answer that, then we’ll proceed. Keep pushing and refusing to cooperate, and we’re done. It’s that easy.
cl, you have launched into another argument entirely: “My argument is that John’s claim remains false regardless of context.”
Are you distancing yourself from your 13 Jan 2011 post? That’s fine, just say that you’re doing so. If we can agree that you made some mistakes in that post then we’ve made a lot of progress.
On the other hand if you insist on avoiding that post, refusing to answer questions that clearly point to mistakes therein, then I’ll know what that means.
cl, are you being ironic on purpose? You have evaded my questions three times now.
In comment #10 you dodged the questions I raised in #8. Furthermore, you appeared to change your position. Your answers to #8 are essential information for me to evaluate #10 — are you taking a different position or not? You say it is not different, but you dodge again, not answering my questions and not explaining yourself. You hide behind the pretext that I need to answer #10 before you answer #8. That’s absurd — I am trying to figure out what #10 means, and you’re blocking that progress by refusing to answer #8.
It appears that you are making excuses to avoid answering my questions:
(1) We agree that Loftus was not claiming that evolution applies to pre-evolutionary existence, so why, in reference to pre-evolutionary existence, did you ask, “How does Darwin’s theory of evolution explain that?”
(2) What exactly is the “raw, unadulterated, misleading ignorance”? Is it the phrase “with evolution we no longer need a creator…” stripped of context? Loftus is referring to evolution superseding creationism. Are you interpreting the phrase to mean something else?
Those questions point to clear flaws in your 2011 post. I predict that you will them dodge again, which will mark (for me) a satisfying conclusion to our discussion.
No, I haven’t. I explained to you that I wanted to secure your agreement before I continued, and, you opted not to say whether you agreed or not. I simply asked you to answer, and *YOU* evaded. Feeling gracious, I then decided to answer your question at #15 with a clear “no,” despite your evasion. Still feeling gracious, I will answer every single question you ask, although you seem wont to extend the same courtesy. Ready? Here we go:
We agree that Loftus was not claiming that evolution applies to pre-evolutionary existence, so why, in reference to pre-evolutionary existence, did you ask, “How does Darwin’s theory of evolution explain that?
Because Loftus still has two things to explain—not “nothing” as he falsely contends—even if the contemporary evolutionary narrative is true. He still has to explain pre-Earth existence, and he still has to explain *WHY* there is even any evolution at all.
What exactly is the “raw, unadulterated, misleading ignorance”?
It refers to the fact that the aforementioned phenomena remain in need of explanation. Now, should you come back and repeat yourself again, that will, for me, mark a satisfying end—not just to this discussion, but to all future discussions.
cl, if someone says, “Evolution explains the diversity of life on Earth without need to invoke a creator,” it doesn’t make sense to respond with, “Haha, gotcha! Evolution doesn’t explain pre-Earth existence!” But pre-Earth existence is not part of the claim. We already agreed that Loftus is simply talking about evolution supplanting creationism. The only way you can get more claims out of that is by playing the quote-mining game I addressed in #8.
cl, if someone says, “Evolution explains the diversity of life on Earth without need to invoke a creator,” it doesn’t make sense to respond with, “Haha, gotcha! Evolution doesn’t explain pre-Earth existence!”
Yes, it does, unless of course one wishes to assume that Earth and evolution just popped into existence from pure nothingness.
But, let’s be real: you came here with a predetermined conclusion, as evidenced by the language in your post at #1. You were convinced, before asking, just like last time, that I’m “twisting John’s words into an absurd notion,” and you are not going to shed that predetermined conclusion.
So, is this it? Or, do you have any other questions?
Well I was right to press for your answer to comment #8 before proceeding. Your response pinpoints more fundamental issues, and it wouldn’t make sense to move on without addressing them.
We already agreed that Loftus was referring to evolution supplanting creationism. Evolution does not claim to offer explanations for anything pre-Earth. When someone says that evolution replaces creationism, he is not claiming that evolution says anything about pre-Earth. He is not making a point about pre-Earth, and he is not required to say anything about pre-Earth.
The only way that you could expect those explanations is to do the quote-mining gymnastics identified in comment #8. This is the most important part of (2) that you continue to dodge. There is every indication that you are stripping the context of the phrase “with evolution we no longer need a creator…” as explained in #8. Still unanswered: Are you interpreting the phrase to mean something other than evolution replacing creationism?
When someone says that evolution replaces creationism, he is not claiming that evolution says anything about pre-Earth. He is not making a point about pre-Earth…
Yes, as I’ve said, oh, I don’t know… maybe four or five times now, that is CORRECT.
…he is not required to say anything about pre-Earth.
That’s where you’re incorrect. In fact, that’s where you’re worse than incorrect: that’s where you’re pulling the very “quote-mining” you’re falsely accusing me of doing. Do you recall the title of the piece in question? Was it, “Science disproves creationism?”
Still unanswered: Are you interpreting the phrase to mean something other than evolution replacing creationism?
To say that is unanswered is to make a false claim. I answered this, several times. Again: NO.
If I say that gravity explains why objects fall toward the center of the Earth (though technically it’s special relativity), then it’s nonsense to respond with the demand that gravity must also explain rainbows. It was never claimed that gravity explained rainbows. That gravity does not explain rainbows does not imply that gravity is any less of an explanation for falling bodies.
When I claim that gravity causes objects to fall, I am not required to say anything about rainbows. I hope the analogy with evolution and pre-Earth is clear.
If I say that gravity explains why objects fall toward the center of the Earth (though technically it’s special relativity), then it’s nonsense to respond with the demand that gravity must also explain rainbows. It was never claimed that gravity explained rainbows. That gravity does not explain rainbows does not imply that gravity is any less of an explanation for falling bodies.
When I claim that gravity causes objects to fall, I am not required to say anything about rainbows. I hope the analogy with evolution and pre-Earth is clear. Loftus doesn’t have to get involved with pre-Earth.
He doesn’t have to refute every conceivable argument for Christianity. If proposition P requires A, B, C, and D to be true, then we disprove P by disproving A or B or C or D, any of those. Outside of mathematics arguments are fuzzy, however, so we pick several holes to punch instead. Saying that science disproves the literal Genesis stories is a perfectly legitimate hole to punch.
I just realized that you appear to be commenting via proxy server, or, if not, you move a heck of a lot between different IP’s. I noticed that some of your comments were getting caught in spam. Just so you know, they’re not being deleted. I released one just now, but, since the others are basically repeats I’m just going to trash them.
Your computer might be infected with malware, too. That’s something else that could cause this problem. There are literally like two dozen comments of yours in the spam trap.
If I say that gravity explains why objects fall toward the center of the Earth (though technically it’s special relativity), then it’s nonsense to respond with the demand that gravity must also explain rainbows. It was never claimed that gravity explained rainbows. That gravity does not explain rainbows does not imply that gravity is any less of an explanation for falling bodies. When I claim that gravity causes objects to fall, I am not required to say anything about rainbows.
Correct, but irrelevant, since—for the sixth time now—John never claimed that evolution explained pre-Earth, and I never claimed he had to. I know you’re going to take this personally, but, like I said in the other thread, you have a tendency towards pedantry and hyper-literalism. My “How does Darwin’s theory explain that?” remark was a rhetorical question, meant to highlight the fact that invoking Darwin’s theory does not absolve John’s need to explain pre-Earth—which he still must do in order to advance the strong claim, science disproves Christianity. I really hope you get this, else, we’ve wasted so much time.
Loftus doesn’t have to get involved with pre-Earth.
Incorrect. The second he claims the stronger, science disproves Christianity, he does. OTOH, if John had limited his claim to the weaker, “science disproves YEC,” you would have every right to make your complaint. But, John didn’t limit his claim thus. Ergo, you have no right to make your complaint. It’s wholly misplaced.
He doesn’t have to refute every conceivable argument for Christianity.
Did I say he did? Or are you twisting and/or misinterpreting my words? Answer honestly.
If proposition P requires A, B, C, and D to be true, then we disprove P by disproving A or B or C or D, any of those.
In this case, “Christianity” is “P”, not “YEC”. Therefore, even if John could show that science “disproves” YEC&mash;and in my honest opinion, that remains up for debate—such would only disprove one interpretation of one chapter in the Bible. That is not sufficient to support the strong claim, science disproves Christianity.
Why You Should Be Skeptical Of John W. Loftus (Index)
Nikolaj Mikkelsen
says...I clicked on the first link and noticed a problem with the first point therein. Loftus said,
Your response:
Loftus was clearly not saying that the Theory of Evolution applies to the period when the Earth did not exist. He is clearly referring to “the literal Genesis account of origins” no longer being necessary or viable in light of our knowledge of evolution.
Instead of taking the plain meaning of Loftus’ words, you twisted them into the absurd notion that evolution explains the entire universe, and then called that “raw, unadulterated, misleading ignorance”. Which it would be, if Loftus had made such a ridiculous claim. Of course, he did not.
cl
says...Pestering again, eh?
Nonsense. I took Loftus’ words at face value. The problem is that Loftus is either too imprecise and inarticulate to write what he should have, or too short-sighted and unintelligent to realize the ramifications of his own statement. I’m not sure which applies. A careful, honest writer would have clarified their claim. They would have said something like this, with the improvements in bold (and notice the improvements are for clarity and not brevity):
…but that’s not what John said, is it? No. Loftus misleads those with the inability to see through his terribly imprecise claim. Loftus misleads them to believe that there is *NOTHING* left to explain. See that? He said *NOTHING* period, and that *IS* raw, unadulterated misleading ignorance. It’s not my fault the man writes with the precision of a 2×4 when a pencil is needed.
Moreover, it’s not just with regard to the universe that John’s claim is wrong. The evolutionary hypothesis—even if we grant it 100% true—doesn’t take away the need for a Creator. All the existing debate and arguments about kinesis apply. Does John inform his readers thus? No.
So, apologize for him all you want, but you’ll impress me more once you stop trying to get a “gotcha” and stop playing partisan atheist nonsense. Let me see you criticize your own side, because there’s plenty to criticize in those links.
Nikolaj Mikkelsen
says...cl, I am quite surprised that you are defending this, as it’s a straightforward case. I expected a response along the lines of, “Yeah, that was off.”
How could anyone claim that evolution applies to the time before the Earth even existed? That doesn’t make a wit of sense.
It’s doubly nonsensical because Loftus says “the literal Genesis account” in the very next sentence. There’s no question as to what he’s talking about.
Furthermore (as if there needs to be a furthermore), this is in the context of natural explanations replacing supernatural ones. That is, evolution replacing creationism.
Step back a moment and take a deep breath. Let go of the urge to engage in apologetics no matter what the cost. Now, what you said was off, right?
cl
says...Correct. There is no question now, and there was no question then. Did you finish my paragraph in the original essay? If you did, why didn’t you notice where I wrote, Loftus makes it clear that his argument is in the context of Darwin’s TENS?
Read that again, then let it sink in: that sentence is undeniable *PROOF* that I understood the context Loftus sought to establish. You’re reading me, and hearing something like, “cl’s twisting this to say Loftus is claiming TENS can account for all existence.” No, I’m not. That’s why I was careful to include my acknowledgement of Loftus’ desired context—a fact which should render your criticism void.
So next time you think you know what I mean, why don’t you ask? This is the third time you’ve judged me as coming from bad faith, not because of any point I actually made, but because of your own misunderstandings of points I’ve made.
There is literally nothing I can do to make you see. I’ve tried, several times with you. You are bent on seeing what you want to see, and I simply can’t do anything about it. You leap to conclusions, you don’t ask or seek to understand. You just point and shoot. It’s terribly old already.
Now, unless you want to ask some questions and actually have a legitimate conversation, I’m over it. Gone are the days when I give atheists countless chances. Ball’s in your court. If your next response displays the same sort of faulty assumptions and lack of charity as your others, I’m not even going to respond.
Nikolaj Mikkelsen
says...cl, I am not addressing your understanding, but the fallacy of your argument. This is what I said, with bold added:
Ergo, nobody could possibly claim that evolution applies to the time before the Earth even existed. That’s nonsense. Ergo, Loftus isn’t claiming that. Ergo, when he says, “with evolution we no longer need a creator,” he is not referring to the pre-Earth period (and earlier I mentioned two additional reasons for that conclusion). However you are “rebutting” Loftus as if he was referring to a pre-Earth creator. That’s your mistake, attacking that ridiculous straw man.
You quote yourself in what you imagine to be some revelatory moment for me,
however that only underscores my point. That you understood that Loftus was referring to biological evolution makes you more responsible, not less, for arguing so fallaciously.
To recap: nobody, including you, could possibly think that Loftus was referring to a pre-Earth creator. Therefore your argument that he was referring to a pre-Earth creator is wrong:
cl
says...Last try:
Yes, I agree. That’s why the whole rest of your comment is completely irrelevant: That’s why, in the original post, I *CLARIFIED* that I was not claiming that Loftus was claiming evolution applies to the time before the Earth even existed (hence the line, ‘no retreating to cosmic evolution). Do you get it yet?
Again: I did not make any such argument. I did not argue that Loftus was referring to a pre-Earth creator. If you cannot acknowledge this and meet me on the terms of my own argument, as opposed to your twisted rendition of it, we are at an impasse.
cl
says...Actually, I need to clarify one thing: I agree that nobody could posit biological evolution as applying to the time before Earth existed. There are plenty of people who invoke cosmic evolution.
Nikolaj Mikkelsen
says...cl, so we agree that Loftus clearly wasn’t referring to a pre-Earth creator when he said, “with evolution we no longer need a creator”. And we agree that you didn’t think he was referring to a pre-Earth creator.
How, then, do we square that with what you said in the paragraph I quoted?
You are clearly referring to a pre-Earth creator in that paragraph. For instance in reference to pre-evolutionary existence you ask, “How does Darwin’s theory of evolution explain that?” But we agree that Loftus wasn’t claiming that evolution explains the pre-Earth period.
And what exactly is the “raw, unadulterated, misleading ignorance”?
You appear to be saying that if we ignore the plain meaning of his words, and ignore the plain context of those words, and ignore the plain logic of what those words can possibly mean, then the phrase “with evolution we no longer need a creator” alone — stripped of plain meaning, context, and logic — is “raw, unadulterated, misleading ignorance”. Is that your argument?
To be absolutely explicit:
Plain meaning: Loftus says in the very next sentence, “Completely obliterated is the literal Genesis account of origins…” That is, evolution replacing creationism.
Plain context: Loftus opened with, “We now have better natural explanations of the existing phenomena. They explain more without recourse to the ad hoc theories that supernatural explanations offer believers.” That is, evolution replacing creationism.
Plain logic of what words could possibly mean: It doesn’t even make sense to say that evolution refers to the pre-Earth period.
Syllabus
says...I don’t know why you even bother with Cowboy Hat Guy, cl. There are more intelligent, articulate and rational sceptics out there.
cl
says...Okay. You’re at least asking questions instead of just repeating yourself and blathering on about charity. I can work with that.
Yes, that is, and has been, absolutely correct.
I don’t have to advance the argument, “Loftus believes evolution can explain pre-Earth phenomena” in order to falsify the claim, “because of evolution, there’s nothing left to explain.” Even if we grant that the contemporary evolutionary narrative is true—which is a total leap of faith IMHO—John’s claim of “nothing left to explain” remains false. There are two ways in which we can interpret Loftus’ statement. One is that evolution means a Creator is no longer necessary, en total. The other is that evolution means a Creator is no longer necessary, in order to explain the existence of life. My argument is that John’s claim remains false regardless of context.
Now, obviously you’re not going to agree with me that the contemporary evolutionary narrative is a leap of faith, or that John’s claim is false in both contexts—I will flesh those out once I’m confident you understand everything up to this point. Are you with me so far? If not, let me know what needs clarification.
cl
says...Syllabus,
Because Cowboy Hat Guy is more popular. Because Cowboy Hat Guy literally has throngs of devotees who have been duped into accepting crap as philosophy. People are abandoning their faith because of Cowboy Hat Guy. If I expose the vapidity of Cowboy Hat Guy’s “arguments” then maybe, just maybe some of his devotees will begin to think critically about Cowboy Hat Guy.
At least, that’s the goal, and I think it worthy.
Syllabus
says...Fair enough, I guess.
Nikolaj Mikkelsen
says...cl, you congratulate me for asking questions, but you didn’t answer them.
(1) We agree that Loftus was not claiming that evolution applies to pre-evolutionary existence, so why, in reference to pre-evolutionary existence, did you ask, “How does Darwin’s theory of evolution explain that?”
(2) What exactly is the “raw, unadulterated, misleading ignorance”? Is it the phrase “with evolution we no longer need a creator…” stripped of context? Loftus is referring to evolution superseding creationism. Are you interpreting the phrase to mean something else?
cl
says...Uh, didn’t you read where I said I would answer the questions once you affirmed or disaffirmed that you understood everything said in the last comment? I don’t want to answer your questions until I’m sure we’re on the same page. Are we on the same page WRT everything I said in my last comment, or not? Answer that, then we’ll proceed. Keep pushing and refusing to cooperate, and we’re done. It’s that easy.
Nikolaj Mikkelsen
says...cl, you have launched into another argument entirely: “My argument is that John’s claim remains false regardless of context.”
Are you distancing yourself from your 13 Jan 2011 post? That’s fine, just say that you’re doing so. If we can agree that you made some mistakes in that post then we’ve made a lot of progress.
On the other hand if you insist on avoiding that post, refusing to answer questions that clearly point to mistakes therein, then I’ll know what that means.
cl
says...[…facepalm…] Ask an atheist for a straight answer, then watch as they dodge and evade. Whatever. Maybe leading by example will help…
No, not one bit. Next question.
NM
says...cl, are you being ironic on purpose? You have evaded my questions three times now.
In comment #10 you dodged the questions I raised in #8. Furthermore, you appeared to change your position. Your answers to #8 are essential information for me to evaluate #10 — are you taking a different position or not? You say it is not different, but you dodge again, not answering my questions and not explaining yourself. You hide behind the pretext that I need to answer #10 before you answer #8. That’s absurd — I am trying to figure out what #10 means, and you’re blocking that progress by refusing to answer #8.
It appears that you are making excuses to avoid answering my questions:
(1) We agree that Loftus was not claiming that evolution applies to pre-evolutionary existence, so why, in reference to pre-evolutionary existence, did you ask, “How does Darwin’s theory of evolution explain that?”
(2) What exactly is the “raw, unadulterated, misleading ignorance”? Is it the phrase “with evolution we no longer need a creator…” stripped of context? Loftus is referring to evolution superseding creationism. Are you interpreting the phrase to mean something else?
Those questions point to clear flaws in your 2011 post. I predict that you will them dodge again, which will mark (for me) a satisfying conclusion to our discussion.
cl
says...No, I haven’t. I explained to you that I wanted to secure your agreement before I continued, and, you opted not to say whether you agreed or not. I simply asked you to answer, and *YOU* evaded. Feeling gracious, I then decided to answer your question at #15 with a clear “no,” despite your evasion. Still feeling gracious, I will answer every single question you ask, although you seem wont to extend the same courtesy. Ready? Here we go:
Because Loftus still has two things to explain—not “nothing” as he falsely contends—even if the contemporary evolutionary narrative is true. He still has to explain pre-Earth existence, and he still has to explain *WHY* there is even any evolution at all.
It refers to the fact that the aforementioned phenomena remain in need of explanation. Now, should you come back and repeat yourself again, that will, for me, mark a satisfying end—not just to this discussion, but to all future discussions.
Do you have any further questions?
Nikolaj Mikkelsen
says...cl, if someone says, “Evolution explains the diversity of life on Earth without need to invoke a creator,” it doesn’t make sense to respond with, “Haha, gotcha! Evolution doesn’t explain pre-Earth existence!” But pre-Earth existence is not part of the claim. We already agreed that Loftus is simply talking about evolution supplanting creationism. The only way you can get more claims out of that is by playing the quote-mining game I addressed in #8.
cl
says...Yes, it does, unless of course one wishes to assume that Earth and evolution just popped into existence from pure nothingness.
But, let’s be real: you came here with a predetermined conclusion, as evidenced by the language in your post at #1. You were convinced, before asking, just like last time, that I’m “twisting John’s words into an absurd notion,” and you are not going to shed that predetermined conclusion.
So, is this it? Or, do you have any other questions?
Nikolaj Mikkelsen
says...Well I was right to press for your answer to comment #8 before proceeding. Your response pinpoints more fundamental issues, and it wouldn’t make sense to move on without addressing them.
We already agreed that Loftus was referring to evolution supplanting creationism. Evolution does not claim to offer explanations for anything pre-Earth. When someone says that evolution replaces creationism, he is not claiming that evolution says anything about pre-Earth. He is not making a point about pre-Earth, and he is not required to say anything about pre-Earth.
The only way that you could expect those explanations is to do the quote-mining gymnastics identified in comment #8. This is the most important part of (2) that you continue to dodge. There is every indication that you are stripping the context of the phrase “with evolution we no longer need a creator…” as explained in #8. Still unanswered: Are you interpreting the phrase to mean something other than evolution replacing creationism?
cl
says...[…facepalm…]
Yes, as I’ve said, oh, I don’t know… maybe four or five times now, that is CORRECT.
That’s where you’re incorrect. In fact, that’s where you’re worse than incorrect: that’s where you’re pulling the very “quote-mining” you’re falsely accusing me of doing. Do you recall the title of the piece in question? Was it, “Science disproves creationism?”
To say that is unanswered is to make a false claim. I answered this, several times. Again: NO.
Nikolaj Mikkelsen
says...If I say that gravity explains why objects fall toward the center of the Earth (though technically it’s special relativity), then it’s nonsense to respond with the demand that gravity must also explain rainbows. It was never claimed that gravity explained rainbows. That gravity does not explain rainbows does not imply that gravity is any less of an explanation for falling bodies.
When I claim that gravity causes objects to fall, I am not required to say anything about rainbows. I hope the analogy with evolution and pre-Earth is clear.
Nikolaj Mikkelsen
says...If I say that gravity explains why objects fall toward the center of the Earth (though technically it’s special relativity), then it’s nonsense to respond with the demand that gravity must also explain rainbows. It was never claimed that gravity explained rainbows. That gravity does not explain rainbows does not imply that gravity is any less of an explanation for falling bodies.
When I claim that gravity causes objects to fall, I am not required to say anything about rainbows. I hope the analogy with evolution and pre-Earth is clear. Loftus doesn’t have to get involved with pre-Earth.
He doesn’t have to refute every conceivable argument for Christianity. If proposition P requires A, B, C, and D to be true, then we disprove P by disproving A or B or C or D, any of those. Outside of mathematics arguments are fuzzy, however, so we pick several holes to punch instead. Saying that science disproves the literal Genesis stories is a perfectly legitimate hole to punch.
cl
says...Hey Nikolaj,
I just realized that you appear to be commenting via proxy server, or, if not, you move a heck of a lot between different IP’s. I noticed that some of your comments were getting caught in spam. Just so you know, they’re not being deleted. I released one just now, but, since the others are basically repeats I’m just going to trash them.
I’ll get to your comment later.
cl
says...Your computer might be infected with malware, too. That’s something else that could cause this problem. There are literally like two dozen comments of yours in the spam trap.
Sorry about that.
cl
says...Correct, but irrelevant, since—for the sixth time now—John never claimed that evolution explained pre-Earth, and I never claimed he had to. I know you’re going to take this personally, but, like I said in the other thread, you have a tendency towards pedantry and hyper-literalism. My “How does Darwin’s theory explain that?” remark was a rhetorical question, meant to highlight the fact that invoking Darwin’s theory does not absolve John’s need to explain pre-Earth—which he still must do in order to advance the strong claim, science disproves Christianity. I really hope you get this, else, we’ve wasted so much time.
Incorrect. The second he claims the stronger, science disproves Christianity, he does. OTOH, if John had limited his claim to the weaker, “science disproves YEC,” you would have every right to make your complaint. But, John didn’t limit his claim thus. Ergo, you have no right to make your complaint. It’s wholly misplaced.
Did I say he did? Or are you twisting and/or misinterpreting my words? Answer honestly.
In this case, “Christianity” is “P”, not “YEC”. Therefore, even if John could show that science “disproves” YEC&mash;and in my honest opinion, that remains up for debate—such would only disprove one interpretation of one chapter in the Bible. That is not sufficient to support the strong claim, science disproves Christianity.