3 evidences against evolution

[Tomm]

(1) Most people know that chicken meat is delicious.
But their meat being delicious actually make them a big target for human predators.

If evolution is based on survival, then why evolution made chicken meat so delicious, given that evolution is so smart , powerful and (seemed to be) all-knowing ?

I believe this reflects Design rather than evolution.
_____________________________________________

(2) Seaweed is now known to fight radiation.

Seaweeds must have gotten this medicinal property from the beginning, but radiation became a major problem only in modern times. It is not really a result of evolving based on current needs (the fix born before the problem arises). Therefore, I believe this reflects Design rather than evolution.

If you say seaweeds only got this property in modern times , i.e. the fix born after the problem arises, then the question is how could evolution happened so quickly, since evolutionists say that evolution takes very very very long time to happen ??
_____________________________________________

(3) Evolutionists like to say beauty is subjective.

They also say flowers evolved to become beautiful to attract bees. If beauty is subjective, then how could flowers know bees' standard of beauty - in other words, how could they know what bees saw as beautiful ??

I believe bees and flowers together reflect a Design plan rather than evolution.

 

[Citanul]

(1) Most people know that chicken meat is delicious.
But their meat being delicious actually make them a big target for human predators.

If evolution is based on survival, then why evolution made chicken meat so delicious, given that evolution is so smart , powerful and (seemed to be) all-knowing ?

Meat-eating creatures find all meat delicious, not just chicken. Those that didn't like meat would have starved. So it's not a case of the chicken evolving to taste delicious, it's a case of meat eaters evolving to like it.

(2) Seaweed is now known to fight radiation.

Seaweeds must have gotten this medicinal property from the beginning, but radiation became a major problem only in modern times. It is not really a result of evolving based on current needs (the fix born before the problem arises). Therefore, I believe this reflects Design rather than evolution.

Seaweed's may have anti-radiation properties but whatever evolutionary mechanism caused those wasn't doing so with the aim of developing a way of combating radiation. It's just a side effect of some other evolutionary development.

(3) Evolutionists like to say beauty is subjective.

They also say flowers evolved to become beautiful to attract bees. If beauty is subjective, then how could flowers know bees' standard of beauty - in other words, how could they know what bees saw as beautiful ??

This point actually supports evolution. The flowers that bees found more attractive would have been the ones that were pollinated more and therefore became more plentiful than those that weren't as attractive - a simple case of natural selection.

 

[shernren]

I bet it's a Poe. (Of course, that's an unfalsifiable hypothesis - someone who was pretending Poe perfectly would simply feign ignorance of Poe.)

 

[Citanul]

I bet it's a Poe.

I dunno - it seems consistent with all other posts made by that poster. I guess they could be a repeat Poe-er, but I think that's not likely.

 

[crawfish]

(1) Most people know that chicken meat is delicious.
But their meat being delicious actually make them a big target for human predators.

If evolution is based on survival, then why evolution made chicken meat so delicious, given that evolution is so smart , powerful and (seemed to be) all-knowing ?

I believe this reflects Design rather than evolution.
_____________________________________________

People are also delicious. You should try a piece sometime.

 

[Assyrian]

Good point crawfish. If cannibalism is wrong, why did God make people out of meat?

 

[Tomm]

Meat-eating creatures find all meat delicious, not just chicken. Those that didn't like meat would have starved. So it's not a case of the chicken evolving to taste delicious, it's a case of meat eaters evolving to like it.

Meat eaters evolving to like chicken........?
Oh, oh, ... what a genius !!!
How about we EVOLVE TO LIKE GRASS to solve the third world hunger problem ???

Seaweed's may have anti-radiation properties but whatever evolutionary mechanism caused those wasn't doing so with the aim of developing a way of combating radiation. It's just a side effect of some other evolutionary development.

No, I don't believe cure is a matter of side effect,
if something cures a disease, it should be designed or
developed to do that, or designed to cure something which is larger and inclusive.

This point actually supports evolution. The flowers that bees found more attractive would have been the ones that were pollinated more and therefore became more plentiful than those that weren't as attractive - a simple case of natural selection.

Are you sure ? Do you realize ,by beautiful, I mean color as well as SHAPE.
Looks like you can't look from others' perspective, and stuck to your own, totally stuck to your own perspective.

_______________________________________________

Dear Citanul, in fact, you still haven't convincingly
refuted my statements.

I found that what evolution did to people is to rob people of logic and sense.

I often wonder how can evolutionists cope with 2 totally conflicting sets of principles and logic --
they look at biology with 1 set of principles and logic (assumes great amazing god-like powers in nature, things can improve by themselves, etc),
and then look at other things and life with a totally different set of principles and logic ("no pain, no gain", "quality does not happen by accident", "you need efforts to improve/maintain something", "there must be an author for every piece of work", etc).

____________________________________

Tom

 

[Citanul]

Meat eaters evolving to like chicken........?
Oh, oh, ... what a genius !!!
How about we EVOLVE TO LIKE GRASS to solve the third world hunger problem ???

We'd have to evolve into herbivores for that to happen as we wouldn't be able to survive just eating grass.

if something cures a disease, it should be designed or
developed to do that

Why should it have to be designed or developed?

Are you sure ? Do you realize ,by beautiful, I mean color as well as SHAPE.

I don't see how that changes things - the flowers that bees find more attractive will reproduce more.

Dear Citanul, in fact, you still haven't convincingly
refuted my statements.

They weren't very convincing arguments in the first place, but I'm probably never going to able to refute them to your satisfaction.

I found that what evolution did to people is to rob people of logic and sense.

I assume you're talking about the theory of evolution here and not people evolving to be less logical.

I disagree. What is more logical and sensible - to accept a theory supported by all the evidence available or to completely ignore it?

I often wonder how can evolutionists cope with 2 totally conflicting sets of principles and logic --
they look at biology with 1 set of principles and logic (assumes great amazing god-like powers in nature, things can improve by themselves, etc),
and then look at other things and life with a totally different set of principles and logic ("no pain, no gain", "quality does not happen by accident", "you need efforts to improve/maintain something", "there must be an author for every piece of work", etc).

When it comes to scientific matters then evolutionists must look at things using scientific principles, otherwise they can't be considered proper scientists. However, there's no reason why those principles have to extend into everyday life.

 

[Mallon]

Most of these points aren't even worth responding to, because they demonstrate an obvious misunderstanding of evolution. This little tidbit did catch my attention, though.

If evolution is based on survival, then why evolution made chicken meat so delicious, given that evolution is so smart , powerful and (seemed to be) all-knowing ?

I believe this reflects Design rather than evolution.

As someone who doesn't subscribe to evolution, why would God design chickens to taste so good if, as Genesis literally states, God originally intended for all His creation to be herbivorous?

 

[crawfish]

Most of these points aren't even worth responding to, because they demonstrate an obvious misunderstanding of evolution. This little tidbit did catch my attention, though.

As someone who doesn't subscribe to evolution, why would God design chickens to taste so good if, as Genesis literally states, God originally intended for all His creation to be herbivorous?

Perhaps it took sin to make chickens taste good. At least that's what I tell myself after gorging on Popeye's...

 

[Mallon]

Perhaps it took sin to make chickens taste good. At least that's what I tell myself after gorging on Popeye's...

By listening to anti-evolutionary creationists, it always strikes me that the Fall was a more powerful creator than God Himself!

 

[shernren]

By listening to anti-evolutionary creationists, it always strikes me that the Fall was a more powerful creator than God Himself!

God: What do you think of the meat, Raphael?
Raphael: (munching) Really, really chewy. It could use a lot less collagen.
God: Ok. Get you a new batch in a snap.
Raphael: God, why are You doing this?
God: Well, because animals will get to eat each other?
Raphael: What?
God: Yes, they will feed each other.
Raphael: Oh. (beat) What? That's disgusting! That's just as horrible as that weird complex-carbohydrate-and-cheese food you said those humans would develop in 6,000 years -
God: Which do you mean? Pizza, or poutine?
Raphael: Both! (shudders)
God: Hmmm. You have a point there. Maybe I should reconsider Canad -
Raphael: That's not the point! God, You can't let animals eat animals! Animal death is abhorrent because - because death is ba-a-a-ad, even though animals' existence has no ethical significance compared to human life! And because animal death is a signifier of sin, even though there is absolutely no connection between eating meat and receiving ritual absolution of sins! And because things with sharp pointy teeth are evil and scary and dangerous, even though You are going to call Your Son a lion!
God: You're making absolute sense, Raphael. That's why Creation is going to have a beta version.
Raphael: Surely you mean alpha?
God: No, beta. I'm Alpha around here.
Raphael: Oops. Sorry, God.
God: Anyway, yes. The beta version will be completely vegetarian. And the only avenue to sin will be represented with a highly stylized tree in exquisite voxel rendering.
Raphael: But, God, how long can the beta version last? After all, those T-Rexes don't look like they can stomach grass for too long, even with diastemas.
God: Oh, only for a few hours. I'm omniscient, remember? Adam and Eve are going to crash the beta version with their attempts at unauthorized root access.
Raphael: So the beta isn't itself stable? It couldn't operate indefinitely, even under hypothetical optimal conditions?
God: I said so.
Raphael: Fine. How long are you keeping the chicken meat sample in the oven for?
God: Another ten seconds of Darwinization and it should be done.
Raphael: Ok. But you know something? You know how You're going to tell those Israelites to not leave the blood in?
God: Yes?
Raphael: I personally think that's not such a good idea. It tastes wonderful. And you need to make fish liver a lot, lot more tasty.
God: Raphael?
Raphael: Yes?
God: It's the Apocrypha for you.
Raphael: Hey! No fair!
God: You may question My programming paradigms, but you never, never doubt My cooking skills. Understand?

 

[Tomm]

They weren't very convincing arguments in the first place

My arguments unconvincing ? And you think evolution convincing ? Oh...

Then that shows that you are stuck to your own viewpoint and reluctant to change a little bit -
and theory of evolution* is no more than just a hypothesis, it is unconvincing, sounds like fairy tale and have no convincing evidences whatsoever - except some FAKE evidences, e.g. Piltdown man, Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis, Nebraska man, etc.

* I mean MACRO evolution only. But micro evolution - changes within own species - seems to be real and is acceptable (which shows that I am willing to look at evidences and am willing to change my viewpoint)

__________
Tom

 

[crawfish]

You do realize that chickens have been bred in captivity to enhance their taste? Wild chicken, while edible, is hardly the tasty meat you find sold in supermarkets.

Now, as to why the banana was made in such a convenient shape, THAT is an argument.

 

[The Lady Kate]

(1) Most people know that chicken meat is delicious.
But their meat being delicious actually make them a big target for human predators.

If evolution is based on survival, then why evolution made chicken meat so delicious, given that evolution is so smart , powerful and (seemed to be) all-knowing ?

I believe this reflects Design rather than evolution.
_____________________________________________

I hate chicken... I prefer tuna. What does that reflect?

(2) Seaweed is now known to fight radiation.

Seaweeds must have gotten this medicinal property from the beginning, but radiation became a major problem only in modern times. It is not really a result of evolving based on current needs (the fix born before the problem arises). Therefore, I believe this reflects Design rather than evolution.

If you say seaweeds only got this property in modern times , i.e. the fix born after the problem arises, then the question is how could evolution happened so quickly, since evolutionists say that evolution takes very very very long time to happen ??
_____________________________________________

Go outside... look up. That big bright hot thing in the sky has been putting out radiation for billions of years. Surely some organisms would have developed a means to combat it... right?

(3) Evolutionists like to say beauty is subjective.

They also say flowers evolved to become beautiful to attract bees. If beauty is subjective, then how could flowers know bees' standard of beauty - in other words, how could they know what bees saw as beautiful ??

I believe bees and flowers together reflect a Design plan rather than evolution.

Beautiful flowers got pollenated... ugly ones did not. Pollenated flowers reproduce... unpollenated ones do not.

See the pattern?

 

[Mallon]

* I mean MACRO evolution only. But micro evolution - changes within own species - seems to be real and is acceptable (which shows that I am willing to look at evidences and am willing to change my viewpoint)

Are you denying that changes between species (i.e., speciation) occur? If so, I might suggest that we aren't the ones unwilling to change our minds in light of the evidence. We have observed speciation (read: macroevolution).
By the way, none of the supposed evidences you referred to are used in support of evolution. They were refuted by evolutionary scientists (note: NOT YECs) long ago. I highly recommend you check out the following site before repeating those PRATTs again:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

 

[Citanul]

My arguments unconvincing ? And you think evolution convincing ? Oh...

Then that shows that you are stuck to your own viewpoint and reluctant to change a little bit -

Show me some convincing evidence for an alternative to evolution then. All you've done is said, "Evolution didn't happen and here's why", without offering anything which explains the things evolution does.

and theory of evolution* is no more than just a hypothesis

What is your definition of a theory? It sounds here as though you don't quite understand what one is.

, it is unconvincing, sounds like fairy tale and have no convincing evidences whatsoever - except some FAKE evidences, e.g. Piltdown man, Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis, Nebraska man, etc.

As Mallon pointed out, none of those are used as evidence for evolution.

 

[crawfish]

I hate chicken... I prefer tuna. What does that reflect?

Seriously bad taste.

 

[Melethiel]

I prefer fish.

And salo, but that's a different story...

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Most of these points aren't even worth responding to, because they demonstrate an obvious misunderstanding of evolution. This little tidbit did catch my attention, though.

As someone who doesn't subscribe to evolution, why would God design chickens to taste so good if, as Genesis literally states, God originally intended for all His creation to be herbivorous?

good yes I certainly agree. I've been on forums where this is discussed with some modicum of sense at least. the taste of chicken has something to do with evolution? LOL...I was all set for abiogenesis and the 2nd law of thermodynamics and I get chicken and seaweed arguments...Haved I warped to a new universe?