Equivocation
Equivocation is a big word! But let's make it simple. I'll explain what equivocation is.
The fallacy of equivocation is committed when someone uses the same word twice (or , but each time it is used, it has a different meaning. Here's one example:
The fallacy of equivocation is committed when someone uses the same word twice (or , but each time it is used, it has a different meaning. Here's one example:
As you can see, he used the word "evolution" twice. The first time evolution is used it's definition is The theory we all came from a common ancestor. The second time it is used, the definition is simply change over time. The man in the picture thinks the second "evolution" explains the first "evolution", and that is not the case.
Here's another example:
Here's another example:
Get the point?
So how does this apply to evolutionists and atheists? They might say something like,"You creationists don't believe in evolution (part a). But Evolution happens all the time (part b). Therefore, it is against science that you creationists are against evolution (part c)." This argument was given to me by an atheist in a debate chat room, and honestly, I laughed.
Parts A and C both use the word evolution meaning we all came from a common ancestor (which is wrong evolution). Part B uses the word evolution meaning change over time. Then part C the atheists assumes that creationists are against science.
In this sentence the atheist is committing a few fallacies. Equivocation, ad hominem, faulty assumption, and he is begging the question. He is ad hominem because he said I'm against science, But I am not. I'll explain faulty assumption later. And he is begging the question because he's using circular reasoning.
Okay, just one more example of equivocation:
A man walks into a store and just takes a bunch of chips and sodas. The owner runs over and shouts, "Hey! You can't just take that, that's stealing!" The robber looks at him casually and says, "Well, baseball players steal bases all the time. If it's okay for baseball players to do it, it's okay for me to do it." The owner looks at the robber, then looks at his feet, "You gotta point..."
So how does this apply to evolutionists and atheists? They might say something like,"You creationists don't believe in evolution (part a). But Evolution happens all the time (part b). Therefore, it is against science that you creationists are against evolution (part c)." This argument was given to me by an atheist in a debate chat room, and honestly, I laughed.
Parts A and C both use the word evolution meaning we all came from a common ancestor (which is wrong evolution). Part B uses the word evolution meaning change over time. Then part C the atheists assumes that creationists are against science.
In this sentence the atheist is committing a few fallacies. Equivocation, ad hominem, faulty assumption, and he is begging the question. He is ad hominem because he said I'm against science, But I am not. I'll explain faulty assumption later. And he is begging the question because he's using circular reasoning.
Okay, just one more example of equivocation:
A man walks into a store and just takes a bunch of chips and sodas. The owner runs over and shouts, "Hey! You can't just take that, that's stealing!" The robber looks at him casually and says, "Well, baseball players steal bases all the time. If it's okay for baseball players to do it, it's okay for me to do it." The owner looks at the robber, then looks at his feet, "You gotta point..."
