Some of you may have heard of theories put forth that allow the universe to come from desolate nothingness. AiG has found one of these in Discover magazine, and tries, weakly I might add, to undercut it. [Read here]
The argument for a Universe from nothing is as follows:
"All matter plus all gravity in the observable universe equals zero. So the universe could come from nothing because it is, fundamentally, nothing."
So in essence, the universe is made up of positives and negatives, whose sum is equal to nothing. Basically, if something, some force, divided this nothingness into an equal set of positives and negatives, it would create a universe. We can see that our universe is consistent with this, by the evidence given above. We also know about quantum fluctuations, the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of nothing. When these fluctuations happen, it creates a particle and antiparticle, the positive and the negative.
It blows my mind, but it certainly does make sense and is, in my opinion, (and many prominent physicists') a valid theory.
But AiG won't have it. They don't directly attack this theory, they just state that the article does not give a method for this to happen (probably not true), and then go on to accuse Discover Magazine of making the Fallacy of Equivocation. "If we define the universe as nothing, then it is completely consistent to say that its origin is from nothing. Using this technique, I can prove that black is white, and that night is day."
Can you believe the stupidity and ignorance contained within his statement? We are not defining the Universe as nothing; Our universe is consistent with what we would expect from it if it came from nothing.