Image by Tim Newcombe
A friendly query from Robert F, from Canada, who has been following an online forum, and faced a vicious attack that creationists are lying, in this case about human and ape similarities.
Frankly, if this Rubble’s contributions dominate the forum, I don’t know why you bother to participate! (Compare our previous comment on forums)
It seems that Rubble accuses me of lying because he has decreed that anyone who works for a creationist organisation is by definition a liar! Case closed! It would be like me asserting that Richard Dawkins is a liar, merely because he makes a living from promoting materialism / atheism (he does; he’s made millions).
If Rubble did any substantial research before accusing those he disagrees with of lying, he would know that I forfeited a much higher paying job, which I really liked, to be involved full-time with Creation Ministries International. So I am not in it for the money, as he implies. Furthermore, I get no royalties for the books I have written (unlike high-profile atheists who have written books).
The case of Don Batten is centered upon the following facts:
I hope that Rubble’s readers actually read the article and not just his spin on it, because he does exactly what he accuses creationists of doing (elsewhere): quote mining (taking things out of context); and this is an extreme example. The context of similarity in my article was clearly biochemical function:
Rubble’s argument is illogical and completely irrelevant to the article he criticises: the wings of birds, pterosaurs, bats and insects are incredibly different and would not be expected to be coded by similar DNA sequences. For a start, bat wings are covered with a skin membrane to create the flying surface, whereas bird wings have feathers in abundance! And insect wings do not have bones to provide the structure. And there are many other fundamental differences in construction materials and design. No, I made it clear that I was speaking of DNA similarity for similar biochemical functions.
And later in the very same article I even pointed out that very similar DNA sequences can have different functions:
“ Does a high degree of similarity mean that two DNA sequences have the same meaning or function? No, not necessarily. Compare the following sentences:
There are many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.
There are not many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.
These sentences have 97% homology [similarity] and yet have almost opposite meanings! There is a strong analogy here to the way in which large DNA sequences can be turned on or off by relatively small control sequences. The DNA similarity data don’t quite mean what the evolutionary popularizers claim! ”
Rubble’s is one of the worst cases of misrepresentation of a creationist’s argument that I have seen. It is really the worst of gutter tactics.
Rubble’s “reasoning” is sadly true to his pseudonym: a mess. The accusation is illogical and without any foundation whatsoever. It seems to me that Rubble was caught out over his accusation of lying and, when asked to prove it, had to scratch around for some justification for his accusation. Finding none, he tried to bluff his way through.
Robert said that he thinks that Rubble has said that he believes in God. But one of the marks of a true Christian (not just believing that God exists, because even Satan believes that) is a penchant for the truth, (cf. (John 8:32, 14:6)!