Showing posts with the label Equivocation

Evolution, Aircraft, and Equivocation

Did you know that computers, legislation, automobiles, bicycles, airplanes, and so on can evolve? Sure, no problem! It is legitimate to use the word evolve  in these situations, but the problem is, evolve  has many definitions. (One definition is so vague, it's almost useless: change over time.) But Darwinistas play fast 'n' loose with the definitions. Yours truly in front of a MiG-21 at the Kalamazoo, Michigan air museum, about 1998. One tinhorn laid down some pictures of similarities in the development of airplanes, correctly used the term evolution,  and then conflated that  use of the word with biological evolution.  This involved arbitrary assertions, personal preferences, and a bit of emotional manipulation by claiming that biological evolution cannot be denied by "reasonable" people. Well, no, we'd better believe it, don't want people thinking we're not reasonable, do we? Never mind that his  explanation is not the only one! The better ex

Audio-Video Podcast 19 — Equivocation and Definitions

Do not be alarmed. There are some expensive words in this one, but don't let those throw you. I only want you to learn one (and it's variations): Equivocation. It's a bait-and-switch trick used by atheists and evolutionists to "move the goalposts" and be deceitful. Bill Nye, Evolution Drones and others pull this stunt. Unfortunately, equivocation is very common, and even a part of humor. So, watch for it when someone is trying to manipulate you, and make an effort to avoid using it yourself. It is also extremely important to define your terms, as people have different understandings of the same word. Cultists and liberal Christians love to equivocate so they can deceive. Also, something different. Instead of the "Atheopath Follies", I did a "Religious People Follies" segment. The MP3 can be downloaded here .

Defending Evolutionary Equivocation

Although some evolutionists are supposedly amazed when they are told that there is equivocation, the fact is that such equivocation is actually prevalent. (Of course, this is rooted in their "evolution is a fact" presuppositions.) How do you defend equivocation? With more equivocation, of course. If anyone doubted that evolutionists equivocate, or that such equivocation is prevalent, they need doubt no more. I recently pointed out several examples of evolutionists equivocating on evolution. When they proclaim that evolution is an obvious fact, they are referring to the origin of species by random mutation, genetic drift, natural selection and a host of other explanatory mechanisms evolutionists employ when needed. This claim goes against the scientific evidence. Evolution may or may not have occurred. That is an ontological claim that can be argued. But there is absolutely no question the origin of species by evolution is not a fact. That is an epistemological claim which i

Removing Evolution from Textbooks: Good for the Seoul?

Hilarious! The Republic of Korea (also called South Korea) is correcting evolution in textbooks [ 1 ] . They are removing the same kinds of things that we point out that do not belong in American textbooks. Fundamentalist evolutionists are having a hard time dealing with this development. Note the loaded terminology: "It appears that the United States is not the only country having a hard time accepting evolution" [ 2 ] . "Evolution Under Assault in South Korea’s Schools" [ 3 ] . "South Korea outlaws evolution: Publishers remove examples from school textbooks after protests from creationists" [ 4 ] . "...South Korea, where the anti-evolution sentiment seems to be winning its battle with mainstream science" [ 5 ] . Note not only the hysteria, but the loaded terminology and propping up evolution as a victim. Further, they commit the fallacy of equivocation [ 6 ] by elevating evolution (philosophical historical science, beliefs about the past) w

Circular Reasoning Defines Evolution As Science

Evolutionary teachers often use equivocation to indoctrinate unsuspecting students with the general theory of evolution (GTE). Anti-creationists, such as atheists by definition, commonly object that creation is religion and evolution is science. To defend this claim they will cite a list of criteria that define a ‘good scientific theory’. A common criterion is that the bulk of modern day practising scientists must accept it as valid science. Another criterion defining science is the ability of a theory to make predictions that can be tested. Evolutionists commonly claim that evolution makes many predictions that have been found to be correct. They will cite something like antibiotic resistance in bacteria as some sort of ‘prediction’ of evolution, whereas they question the value of the creationist model in making predictions. Since, they say, creation fails their definition of ‘science’, it is therefore ‘religion’, and (by implication) i