Ongoing Debate With Rhology, the Christian Apologist: Special Pleading and Hypocrisy?

EDIT: Here is his response to this post.  I will be responding to it in time. It's headache inducing, so I may have to do it bit by bit ;)

This is a response to THIS POST, which itself was a response to MY RESPONSE to THIS POST by the user Rhology. That post of his is a response to my Initial Post which was a response to an older post of his (linked to in my original response post).

This might be starting to get confusing. Just follow the links, it's not nearly as confusing as it may sound. Basically, this is the thrid or fourth round in an ongoing debate of sorts with the Christian Apologist Rhology from the RHOBLOGY BLOG.

This response is definitely the most heated of what has thus far been a very civil, but strident, debate. I think I may have just opened the gates to some anger and perhaps even insults, although this was certainly not my intention. Sometimes, to be honest, you have to ruffle some feathers. Regular readers of mine may be scratching their heads at this point, wondering if perhaps I have sustained a head injury or something, as I am known for my fiestiness and proclivity to 'let someone have it' if they, in my estimation, deserve it. I only make these disclaimers in this case because this is someone who, up until this particular comment of his that I am responding to, was open and honest, with a respectful demeanor. Well.....I am afaid the demeanor may have remained intact, but the intellectual honesty seems to have taken the night off.....Let's get into it, shall we?

Response to the Response to my Response by a Christian Apologist

This is a response to THIS POST by the user Rhology (who I accidentally refer to as Rhoblogy in this...sorry man). That post of his is a response to my Initial Post which was a response to an older post of his (linked to in my original response post).

Here goes.

Response to a Christian on the topic of Atheist Morality

I have been engaged in a discussion with a christian apologist, who seems to have been at it for a long time. After some back and forth (during which he was refreshingly honest about his opinions, specifically those relating to the issue of morality in the Old Testament) this was the message directed at me, regarding atheist morality, atheistic inconsistency, and the accuracy of atheistic claims in the comment section of this person's blog (THIS is the post in question).

Answering Creationist Q?s (answersingenesis + middletownbiblechurch)

These questions were derived from:
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/sciences/scienc8.htm

and

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/origin-of-humans

Questions in bold black, answers in bold red.

1) Lets say we did evolve from ape...why did we need to evolve? We have no fur, cant climb trees, aren't as fast and cant really survive in the jungle areas too long...It seems like we devolved in a bunch of ways?

First of all: COMMON ANCESTRY!!!!



All animals evolve, not just humans. As for needing to evolve, we don't need to. Evolution is a natural occurrence that must naturally occur in a system of genetic life that involves mutation and variance. Devolved? We're the most dominant species on the planet. Why do you assume things like speed, fur and climbing trees to be the endpoint(s) of evolution? Here's a hint, there is no goal of evolution. The traits that best enable the propagation of a species live on (natural selection). That's it.

2) why is it that humans can basically eat ANYTHING, including apes....and apes are strictly plant life?

Apes are omnivores.


3) Since a species is commonly defined as a group that can interbreed, it seems like fossils could never be identified to the species level because we can't observe how they interbreed. How do scientists determine what species a fossil is if it looks similar to another fossil but is a different size or slightly different shape? When scientists disagree with the classification of a fossil, who decides where it belongs?

What you described is called morphology. The answer to the question, at least in part, is DNA.


4) The human nose has a prominent bridge and an elongated tip which is lacking in the apes, and man's arms are very short in comparison to the arms of monkeys and apes. The arms of apes hang down to the ground and like its legs, are used for transportation...quick movement & climbing...another de-evolution?

See answer 1. Stop thinking of evolution as though it has an endpoint.


5) Human babies are far more helpless and dependent on their parents than any of the infants of apes and monkeys...What's up with that? Baby apes can move and climb very well only after a few weeks.



The fetal stage in humans is not complete at birth, that's why. Our brains/skulls get too large, so we are born earlier to compensate. Otherwise, we couldn't make it out of the birth canal.



6) If it is inaccurate to say that humans evolved from apes, but instead we should say all apes and humans have a common ancestor, what did the ancestor look like if not like an ape?



Okay, so if you know this, why did you phrase it differently in the beginning? Anyways, why do you equate looking like something with being that something, yet earlier you stated that fossil's can look similar to others fossils? Your question makes no sense. You say we descended from an ancestor that we have in common with apes, yet what did the ancestor look like if not like an ape? That's inconsistent. You're not actually saying what was it, but rather, what did it look like. You are making the vague implication that if it looked like an ape, it must have been an ape? Huh? Do you even know what you are asking here?

Anyways, isn't it quite obvious? You'd assume that they looked like a cross between humans and the other great apes to whom they gave rise.


7) Why is it that only apes evolved like we have? Why is it that we are the only ones that can split the atom, create gorgeous symphonies and 'I Have a Dream' Speeches, map & conquer the galaxy? It seems like only man is free to make real choices, and it's not like we are the only smart ones...Animals are free to do what they are instinctively programmed to do or what they have been trained to do. Men can make plans and decisions and choose a course of action....but how did we evolve to be THIS smart and THIS free?


Why is it that only cheetah evolved like they have? Why is it that they are the only ones that can run so fast? It seems like only cheetahs can run so fast. Cheetahs can run SOOO fast....but how did they evolve to be THIS fast?


Do you get my point? I hope so. Anyways, the answer is simple: prefrontal/frontal cortex.

8) Why is it that only men are able to train and tame other animals?

We're not. Ants can herd aphids, although, even if this were true, and I actually thought it was until I read this online, I don't see how that would be difficult to understand, or contrary to evolution. Presumably, it would boil down to intelligence, would it not? That's how I was going to answer it, until I read the ant thing. We have evolved to possess great (relatively) intelligence.

The Atheist Experience: Global Warming Denial and God Belief

The Atheist Experience: Global Warming Denial and God Belief

The Atheist Experience blog has been updated with a post regarding Rush Limbaugh, who, after identifying himself as a creationist, stated, "I simply cannot accept the fact that we would be created to do things that would destroy our environment..."  (apparently he has never heard of pollution, industrialization, holes in the ozone layer, forced extinctions, and the (egregiously!) fallacious nature of arguments from incredulity)

Don, who posted the blog, went on to postulate why it is he feels that the religious are the most vocal when it comes to global warming denial. For me, the issue is not one of motivating factors in the denial (one of which religion may be) but rather, the denial itself, and how it comes to pass. The unfortunate thing here, is, religious or non, most people seem to come to decisions regarding these sorts of issues based not on the actual science, but what they hear in the media and read on the internet/hear from friends.

A few convincing soundbytes and it's over, which is really sad, and must be inordinately frustrating for those hard at work on these issues.

Sadly, I was one of these people for a while there....so I can understand how it easy it to fall into the trap. The important thing to remember is that the science should speak for the science. Analyze the data yourself, be critical of the methodology and the concluisons but go to the data itself, not an intermediary.

Go the the source, folks, go to the source.