Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,404
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 28:
Line 28: + + + + + + + + + +
→Atheism, equivocation and the origin in the universe
All the scientific evidence points to the universe exploding out of true nothingness, but atheists like Krauss hate this truth.<ref>[https://carm.org/lawrence-krauss-atheist-definition-of-nothing Lawrence Krauss and the Atheist Definition of Nothing], by Robin Schumacher, edited by Matt Slick</ref>}}
All the scientific evidence points to the universe exploding out of true nothingness, but atheists like Krauss hate this truth.<ref>[https://carm.org/lawrence-krauss-atheist-definition-of-nothing Lawrence Krauss and the Atheist Definition of Nothing], by Robin Schumacher, edited by Matt Slick</ref>}}
== Atheism, evolution and equivocation ==
Critics of [[evolution]] state that many of today's proponents of the evolutionary position have diluted the meaning of the term "evolution" to the point where it defined as or the definition includes change over time in the [[Genetics|gene]] pool of a population over time through such processes as [[mutation]], natural selection, and [[genetic drift]].<ref>
* [http://www.arn.org/docs/anderson/an_appb.htm Glossary Definitions of "Evolution"]
* [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe02phl4.html#lgclprblmsflcsqvctn Fallacies used to support evolution:Equivocation]
* [http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_meaningsofevolution.pdf The Meanings of Evolution]
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]],Ph.D., F.M. [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3262/ ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science]
</ref> Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] of [[Creation Ministries International]] declares concerning the diluted definition of the word "evolution":
{{cquote|...many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part way through an argument. A common tactic, ‘bait-and-switch,’ is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution,’ then imply that the GTE [General Theory of Evolution] is thereby proven or even essential, and [[creation]] disproved. The PBS ''Evolution'' series and the ''[[Scientific American]]'' article are full of examples of this fallacy.<ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]],Ph.D., F.M. [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3262/ ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science]</ref><ref>The PBS [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ evolution website] bills itself as "The most comprehensive evolutionary science resource on the Internet" but it is very poorly done.</ref>}}