Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: May 13, 2024, 9:36 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Creationist Equivocation
#5
RE: Creationist Equivocation
(December 5, 2022 at 11:15 pm)Objectivist Wrote: Hello all,

I'm not new here, although I haven't posted in a long time.  

I want to discuss the fact that creationists are guilty of the fallacy of equivocation.  They pack two different meanings into the concept of 'creation' and don't seem to think that this is a problem for them.  

When someone creates something, they take existing materials and rearrange them into a new combination or form such as when a tree is cut into lumber to build a house, stones are mortared together to make a wall, or sap from a rubber tree is made into a tire.  This is the objective meaning of the concept 'create' that is informed by countless examples that we can observe.  

When creationists use the concept 'create' they mean something very different.  They mean that a supernatural consciousness brings something into existence from nothing by essentially wishing it into existence.  I think this is an insurmountable problem for them because they ignore the fact that their worldview forces them to pack a duplicitous meaning into the concept.  The watchmaker argument is a classic example of this.  

I want to know what evidence they have for this double meaning.  When I pick up a piece of rhyolite in my backyard, what evidence or reason is there to suppose that it was wished into existence by a supernatural consciousness?  Can the creationist provide a single example of something being created out of nothing by conscious will alone?  If they can't then they have no rational warrant to use the concept 'create' as they do.

That's not the fallacy of equivocation, which means assigning different meanings to the same word in different parts of the same argument. There is nothing wrong with how creationists are using the word 'create', there's no double meaning involved.

In any case, I'm not sure that pointing out supposed logical fallacies is the way to attack creationism. I support the much more direct method of hitting them over the head with bags of fossils (metaphorically speaking) (sort of).

Boru
‘But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.’ - Thomas Jefferson
Reply



Messages In This Thread
Creationist Equivocation - by Objectivist - December 5, 2022 at 11:15 pm
RE: Creationist Equivocation - by Belacqua - December 5, 2022 at 11:28 pm
RE: Creationist Equivocation - by Objectivist - December 6, 2022 at 9:54 am
RE: Creationist Equivocation - by Anomalocaris - December 5, 2022 at 11:40 pm
RE: Creationist Equivocation - by Belacqua - December 6, 2022 at 3:43 am
RE: Creationist Equivocation - by Jehanne - December 6, 2022 at 8:31 am
RE: Creationist Equivocation - by Objectivist - December 6, 2022 at 10:00 am
RE: Creationist Equivocation - by Belacqua - December 6, 2022 at 3:22 pm
RE: Creationist Equivocation - by Objectivist - December 6, 2022 at 3:51 pm
RE: Creationist Equivocation - by polymath257 - December 6, 2022 at 4:47 pm
RE: Creationist Equivocation - by brewer - December 6, 2022 at 10:57 am
RE: Creationist Equivocation - by BrianSoddingBoru4 - December 6, 2022 at 5:25 am
RE: Creationist Equivocation - by emjay - December 6, 2022 at 8:26 am
RE: Creationist Equivocation - by Objectivist - December 6, 2022 at 10:11 am
RE: Creationist Equivocation - by BrianSoddingBoru4 - December 6, 2022 at 11:16 am
RE: Creationist Equivocation - by Objectivist - December 6, 2022 at 12:24 pm
RE: Creationist Equivocation - by Objectivist - December 6, 2022 at 12:31 pm
RE: Creationist Equivocation - by Ahriman - December 6, 2022 at 7:24 am
RE: Creationist Equivocation - by LinuxGal - December 24, 2022 at 5:08 pm
RE: Creationist Equivocation - by LinuxGal - December 6, 2022 at 7:48 am
RE: Creationist Equivocation - by Mister Agenda - December 6, 2022 at 10:45 am
RE: Creationist Equivocation - by Angrboda - December 6, 2022 at 10:46 am
RE: Creationist Equivocation - by Objectivist - December 6, 2022 at 12:10 pm
RE: Creationist Equivocation - by Neo-Scholastic - December 6, 2022 at 11:15 pm
RE: Creationist Equivocation - by Belacqua - December 7, 2022 at 7:04 am
RE: Creationist Equivocation - by Jehanne - December 7, 2022 at 10:55 am
RE: Creationist Equivocation - by Objectivist - December 7, 2022 at 11:06 am
RE: Creationist Equivocation - by Jehanne - December 7, 2022 at 11:21 am
RE: Creationist Equivocation - by BrianSoddingBoru4 - December 7, 2022 at 11:57 am

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
Bug The Voyage That Shook The World (2009) - Creationist BS masquerading as science Duty 7 704 September 8, 2020 at 5:32 pm
Last Post: Gawdzilla Sama
  The Creationist that Ken Ham calls "stupid" drfuzzy 3 1775 May 7, 2016 at 8:23 pm
Last Post: drfuzzy
  A Creationist answered 10 questions . . . drfuzzy 26 7897 December 11, 2015 at 10:18 pm
Last Post: Wyrd of Gawd
  search Science Related topics Dinosaur Creationist: The Flintstones was a zebo-the-fat 24 4585 May 28, 2015 at 9:23 am
Last Post: dyresand
  Creationist Senators block fossil bill Bittersmart 119 22952 April 5, 2014 at 10:42 pm
Last Post: ThomM
  Pat Robertson implores creationist Ken Ham to shut up Gooders1002 24 4557 February 10, 2014 at 7:53 pm
Last Post: Crossless2.0
  Question for our resident creationist(s) CleanShavenJesus 124 38519 August 20, 2013 at 1:35 pm
Last Post: Faith No More
  Do creationist know that what they are doing is wrong? Nerd 3 1979 March 24, 2013 at 9:33 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  Chat with a creationist Gooders1002 39 19280 May 7, 2012 at 4:59 am
Last Post: DeeTee
  Let's Piss Off Creationist Morons. Minimalist 15 8299 February 22, 2012 at 2:44 pm
Last Post: downbeatplumb



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)