Equivocation
Equivocation means "to call by the same name." It is a fallacy often committed by evolutionists to mislead others. This fallacy is committed when one word is used more than once, but multiple meanings are implied. For example: "I know evolution is true because we see evolution happening all the time." If you haven't noticed, the word "evolution" is used twice, but with two different meanings. The first time "evolution" is used, it is the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor. The second time "evolution" is used, it simply means change over time. This is a logical fallacy.
Evolutionists commit this fallacy quite often. Another example would be: "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 has been given to me several times, and honestly, I just chuckle. 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 in part C, the atheist assumes that creationists are against science.
In this syllogism the atheist is committing a few fallacies. Equivocation, straw man fallacy, faulty assumption, and he is begging the question. He is committing the straw man fallacy because he claims that I'm against science, but I am not. I'm actually for science. I'll explain faulty assumption later. And he is begging the question because he's arguing in a circle. He's basically saying, "evolution is true because evolution is true."
Here's another few examples in syllogism form:
Margarine is better than nothing.
Nothing is better than butter.
Therefore, margarine is better than butter.
(Semantic shift):
This section of the forest has man-eating beasts.
You are a woman.
Therefore, you don't need to worry.
The sign reads "Fine for parking here."
It is fine to park here.
Therefore, I should park here.
All murderers are in-humane.
He is a murderer.
Therefore, he is not human.
Carpenters use planes as tools all the time.
A Boeing 747 is a plane.
Therefore, carpenters use Boeing 747's as tools all the time.
This argument has been given to me several times, and honestly, I just chuckle. 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 in part C, the atheist assumes that creationists are against science.
In this syllogism the atheist is committing a few fallacies. Equivocation, straw man fallacy, faulty assumption, and he is begging the question. He is committing the straw man fallacy because he claims that I'm against science, but I am not. I'm actually for science. I'll explain faulty assumption later. And he is begging the question because he's arguing in a circle. He's basically saying, "evolution is true because evolution is true."
Here's another few examples in syllogism form:
Margarine is better than nothing.
Nothing is better than butter.
Therefore, margarine is better than butter.
(Semantic shift):
This section of the forest has man-eating beasts.
You are a woman.
Therefore, you don't need to worry.
The sign reads "Fine for parking here."
It is fine to park here.
Therefore, I should park here.
All murderers are in-humane.
He is a murderer.
Therefore, he is not human.
Carpenters use planes as tools all the time.
A Boeing 747 is a plane.
Therefore, carpenters use Boeing 747's as tools all the time.