Is this a valid argument against evolution?

Question

I see/hear a lot of people say that they can't imagine their children coming from goo so therefore they don't believe in evolution. Is this a valid argument?

I know this is more of a philosophical question, but we have so much fun debating evolution here in R&S I decided to ask it here.

You guys are so silly. I'm not talking about sperm goo, I talking about goo as in the "primordial ooze". I'm sure you knew that though.

Answer 1

Not at all. Truth is not always pleasant or flattering. Not liking something does not change it. If they can't imagine it, they should study it with an open mind. So much of the rejection of evolution comes from the idea that it insults the special status that man has imagined himself to hold in the grand scheme, i.e. arrogance and conceit get in the way of facing reality. Contrary to anything Rev. 'Einstein' says, the evidence supports evolution. It doesn't take an Einstein to realize that. If the screaming fundamentalist Christians didn't keep pushing their creationism on the world, the subject would never even come up in legitimate scientific circles because it just isn't science. Creationism is deliberate stupidity in its purest form.

Answer 2

Not really... you don't have to go back 600 million years to tell kids come from a goo-y substance.

You see, when a mommy and a daddy really love each other and want a family, daddy puts [bleeeeeeeeeeeeeeppp!] and a white goo comes out and goes all the way to [CENSORED]... 9 months later, out comes baby...

The fact that some people cannot conceive the universe in thousands, millions or billions of years does not undermine scientific fact. Imagination is not a factor when establishing a scientifyc theory.

Answer 3

No, I don't think it is valid answer. But, it is an answer that will satisfy a thinking mind. IF evolution did occur over the tens of millions of years that the evolutionists would have you believe by faith and not by scientific revelation, then they would have to add exponentially to the time line to have enough time for the process to occur. It would have to have been tens of billions of years and the carbon dating that is used cannot reach back that far and even after 5,000 years it is very unreliable. Some of the most recent discoveries of the anthropologists have been dated to millions of years, only to find a metal fragment from a more recent period in the same location and strata.

A valid argument would be to show us the true link between amoebas and parameciums and why the amoeba is still around since it was to have evolved.

Evolution means that it changed from one to another. Nothing has been discovered where one being has changes from one kind into another, ever.

Answer 4

i'm a Christian yet i don't have self assurance that the international grew to become into created in 6 x 24 hours. i'm additionally a scientist at coronary heart and that i comprehend the data tells me that it wasn't created in 6 days. besides the actuality that evolution hasn't certainly been proved, I do locate it a respected explanation of ways existence got here approximately. The DNA data might recommend one creature has developed from yet another yet there is not something to certainly practice it befell. In a fashion, people who say evolution particularly befell so God would not exist are not to any extent further constructive than people who say God exists and he particularly created it in 6 days. i discover it atypical that folk can refuse to have self assurance in God by using fact there is not any data yet then shout that evolution is authentic with out any data. I for one am going to maintain an open innovations. the belief of evolution feels like an exceedingly credible explanation, yet without data it can not be used as data of something. this is in basic terms a remember of perception and faith. Edit: Martin, i'm getting the impression you're a passionate believer in evolution. stable success convincing all human beings. i think of there's a word that includes brick partitions it quite is making an attempt to spring to innovations. am i able to in basic terms upload one factor. Fossil documents do not practice evolution. we've instruments of bones of various a while that have particular features in common that the evolution concept might seem to greater healthful. whether, we will not practice it certainly befell. such as you, i think it befell, yet we will not practice it.

Answer 5

There has not been a valid argument against evolution for 80 years; by valid I mean an alternate theory with evidence to support it. Intelligent Design was conceived by a biologist, but realizing that he had no supporting evidence published it as a "valid" theory to the layman rather than having it shot down by peer review.

Edit:
This link is a quick rebuttal to most creationist claims. You should research them independently as a good practice.

Answer 6

No, it's a basic logical fallacy. They are positing their lack of imagination as a scientific truth. Just because you can't imagine something to be the case, it doesn't mean it isn't.

Most of us can't imagine how zeroes and ones can possibly translate in all the functions a computer does. Yet, the computer does them. So we must conclude that is the case, whether or not we have a clear picture how that can be.

Answer 7

There most likely was a lot of goo about nine months before they were born, but that's a different topic.

Answer 8

You must be kidding? There is a systematic lack of all transitional creatures not just man. Most evolutionists say birds evolved from fish; scales turned into feathers; fins turned into wings. There are thousands of both birds and fish in the fossil record but NO in betweens. No creatures with any sort of fin to wing development.

Since there are no transitional creatures in the fossil record evolutionists turn to a cutie called quantum leaps or punctuated equilibrium. In other words one day a fish is merrily swimming in the ocean when all of a sudden it manifests into a bird and begins flying. Holy Moses! I dare say it takes more 'faith' to believe in evolution than it does in God.

You know those pictures you see in science books that show the evolution of man? Those are merely artist imaginations of what transitional creatures MAY have looked like graduating from monkey to man.

However, having said this it is anybodies right to believe in 'from goo to you by way of the zoo'.

Answer 9

No. It's a fallacy -- the argument from personal incredulity.

The answerer above me went to a typical lie -- the quote mine. The O'Rourke paper he sites poses the circular logic argument and then refutes it in the same paper.

Answer 10

Lack of imagination, wishful thinking, and ignorance to the theory are not good arguments against evolution.