Jump to content


Photo

Vitamins And Health Goodies Imply Creation.


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 29 April 2017 - 07:46 AM

 

Link:  Not only are bioflavonoids impressive in and of themselves, but they also help maximize the benefits of vitamin C by inhibiting its breakdown in the body. The great thing is that bioflavonoids are often found in many of the top vitamin c foods.

What do broccoli, kale, red onions, hot peppers, rutabaga, spinach and watercress have in common? They’re all vegetables that top the charts, specifically the USDA Flavonoid Database, for their high bioflavonoid content. (1) As such, you should consume these bioflavonoid foods because they’ve been shown to have antiviral, anti-allergy, anti-inflammatory and antitumor abilities.

(from; https://draxe.com/bioflavonoids/)

 

And;

 

 

 

Link: The ability of flavonoids to positively impact the human body in a large variety of ways appears to be related to their ability to regulate cell signaling. Flavonoids have been shown to exhibit anti-inflammatory, antithrombogenic, antidiabetic, anticancer and neuroprotective activities.

 

 

Is it a coincidence that not only the various fruits and vegetables contain the vitamins we need, but the bioflavonoids also come with the fruit, which help prevent break down in vitamin C for example. The link says, "bioflavonoids are commonly found in foods alongside vitamin C". Is this a coincidence? It seems unlikely. This counts as evidence of teleology.

 

Obviously in the bible, we imagine the first people wouldn't have got scurvy, because of all of the various fruit in the garden. The abundance of available vitamins would be taken as granted. But it seems fruits and vegetables are purposefully created to give these health benefits.

 

I'm aware that you could counter; "it's symbiosis, the mutual benefits from angiosperms living alongside us."

 

Of course we also breathe in the oxygen given by angiosperms.

 

Can you imagine a diet rich in fruits and vegetables at the beginning of creation, and there is every reason to believe that the original foods were even more beneficial then than they are now, if we assume the creation account is true and we live in a post-flood world. We also know the longevity in the bible, for people, was greater. This is an almost pointlessly extraneous information it seems, if the bible is fictional. There seems to be a direct link between those long ages lived initially in the bible, and creation. As we get further along from creation, post-flood, the longevity of people seems to diminish. 

 

(forgive me for dispelling the myth that I only read creationist resources. The source isn't creationist. I regularly read many secular articles as part of trying to keep a healthy diet and it always fascinates me that I seem to come across information all of the time, which directly favours teleology.)

 

For example calcium and magnesium are both contained in dark leafy greens.

 

Magnesium works with calcium to support proper blood pressure levels and prevent hypertension. Without a proper balance of magnesium to other minerals like calcium, a heart attack can even occur due to severe muscle spasms." (from google)

 

It's as though God packages things with their complimentary nutrients, so that this increases the chance that if you eat something healthy, you get all the benefits rather than half. 

 

CONCLUSION: It's no great checkmate but I believe this is what we would expect from a purposed creation, as evidence.


  • Mike Summers likes this

#2 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 864 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 29 April 2017 - 08:27 AM

Is it a coincidence that not only the various fruits and vegetables contain the vitamins we need, but the bioflavonoids also come with the fruit, which help prevent break down in vitamin C for example. The link says, "bioflavonoids are commonly found in foods alongside vitamin C". Is this a coincidence? It seems unlikely. This counts as evidence of teleology.

 

Perhaps plants with vitamin C have other chemicals to prevent the breakdown of vitamin C because vitamin C is helpful for plants too?
 

"Scientists have proved for the first time that vitamin C is essential for plant growth...... Vitamin C is already known to be an antioxidant, which helps plants deal with stresses from drought to ozone and UV radiation, but until now it was not known that plants could not grow without it." - https://www.scienced...0923205844.htm

 

 

While on vitamin C, how is it intelligently designed that many other animals can produce their own vitamin C, but we can't?

 

For example calcium and magnesium are both contained in dark leafy greens.

 

Magnesium works with calcium to support proper blood pressure levels and prevent hypertension. Without a proper balance of magnesium to other minerals like calcium, a heart attack can even occur due to severe muscle spasms." (from google)

 

It's as though God packages things with their complimentary nutrients, so that this increases the chance that if you eat something healthy, you get all the benefits rather than half. 

 

CONCLUSION: It's no great checkmate but I believe this is what we would expect from a purposed creation, as evidence.

 

Plants use magnesium and calcium too; not just us. I believe magnesium and calcium are beneficial for leaves, but I was never a plant person so I will have to look up exactly what they do when I have time.



#3 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 29 April 2017 - 10:17 AM

 

 

Goku: While on vitamin C, how is it intelligently designed that many other animals can produce their own vitamin C, but we can't?

 

But then does it matter if we just take the fruit and veg easily, from them? There seems to be a symbiotic balance in everything. Maybe our type of body could do without having to produce vit C but is better at other things. In a way that's good design too when you think about it. For example, why can't cars produce petrol? Well, because they can take on the petrol from another source that provides it.

 

 There's no real slam dunk on this one, I am not really proving anything as such I just think it's kind of teleological, it tells me there is purpose to the design. It all tends to fit. Really I'm talking about viability.

 

Even when I look at things like apples and bananas etc...I kind of think to myself, "Too perfect. Too lucky. Perfect parcels of nutrition and it's just supposed to be coincidental?"

 

It screams creation to me. And why not?

 

I say it's at least in line with a creation.



#4 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 554 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 29 April 2017 - 11:14 AM

Even when I look at things like apples and bananas etc...I kind of think to myself, "Too perfect. Too lucky. Perfect parcels of nutrition and it's just supposed to be coincidental?"


No its not coincidental. Plants have evolved to produce nutritious fruit so that they are desirable to be eaten by animals which consequently disperse the seeds. Mutually beneficial.



#5 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 29 April 2017 - 11:26 AM

 

 

Wibble: No its not coincidental. Plants have evolved to produce nutritious fruit so that they are desirable to be eaten by animals which consequently disperse the seeds. Mutually beneficial

 

Yes, that's why I said, you can argue "symbiosis", but to say, "plants have evolved to produce nutritious fruit" is a statement of faith, for the fossil record only shows the same unchanged plants/trees.

 

If you go to the, "list of unchanged organisms thread" you will see that all fossilised plants have no evolution, they appear abruptly with the same leaves, and no history.

 

It seems we quite literally have to believe-by-faith that your scenario happened. So then did the plants somehow know that the bioflavinoids would also help to prevent the break down of vitamin C in our bodies?

 

This is why evolution is such a simplistic explanation. Even if the fruit contained nothing we needed but were tasty, animals would still spread the seeds meaning both the vitamin c and bioflavonoids are extraneous to an evolutionary scenario. 

 

Dark leafy veg provides both calcium and magnesium, do they spread seeds? Spinach wind-pollinates on it's own.

 

So heads it's evolution with wind-pollination, tails it's evolution with seeds in fruit.

 

How do I falsify your scenario? I basically have to GRANT that plants magically evolved based on no evidence.

 

 

 

Wibble: Plants have evolved to produce nutritious fruit

 

No - they haven't, they have always produced according to kind. Just saying it as though it is a fact won't mean it is. There are no facts which can allow you to state this as though it is some kind of knowledge. The 100% proven facts are that plants have been designed to produce the exactly correct nutrition, giving the vitamin C and the flavonoids which are also needed. 

 

Just giving evolution the credit is begging-the-question.



#6 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 554 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 29 April 2017 - 11:46 AM

This is why evolution is such a simplistic explanation. Even if the fruit contained nothing we needed but were tasty, animals would still spread the seeds meaning both the vitamin c and bioflavonoids are extraneous to an evolutionary scenario. [/font]


Fruit just being tasty would not be beneficial to animals, if they had nothing nutritionally beneficial to them the forager would be wasting its time thereby hindering survival and therefore reproductive chances. However if the fruit contained compounds that the animal actually needed to enhance survival then this trait would be more likely passed on to its offspring.



#7 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 29 April 2017 - 11:53 AM

 

 

Wibble: No its not coincidental. Plants have evolved to produce nutritious fruit so that they are desirable to be eaten by animals which consequently disperse the seeds

 

I didn't quite spot the mistake in this reasoning until now.

 

Can anyone see it yet? He's put the cart before the horse.

 

Think about it. How can plants, "evolve to produce nutritious food", so that they will be desirable, if the plant doesn't have foresight? You are making selection the cause, but the nutrients must first be in the fruit.



#8 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 29 April 2017 - 11:56 AM

 

 

Wibble: Fruit just being tasty would not be beneficial to animals, if they had nothing nutritionally beneficial to them the forager would be wasting its time thereby hindering survival and therefore reproductive chances. However if the fruit contained compounds that the animal actually needed to enhance survival then this trait would be more likely passed on to its offspring.

 

Fair enough. So then the fruit FIRSTLY contained vit and flavonoids which just happen to be perfect for our bodies, and the bodies of animals. Why? We need vit C to survive, scurvy can lead to many problems. So we just happen to need the fruit, and it just happens to have the right nutrients. The nutrients must be there, according to you.

 

I agree - they are, the perfectly correct ones. So your answer, "they evolved to give them nutrients" is now disproven, because they can't have evolved the nutrients later as they wouldn't be picked, they must have the nutrients to be picked.



#9 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 29 April 2017 - 11:58 AM

1.Nutrients must be present firstly --.> THEN; picked, eaten --> spread. --> natural selection selects for the ones spread, propagating the genes.

 

Only at the, "picked, eaten then spread" stage would evolution favour the selection by selection pressure. The trees with the fruit would then tend to be selected for if their genes were spread and this was beneficial, but as you can see, you can't put the cart before the horse, the nutrients must first be in the fruit before natural selection can take effect.

 

This is the classical problem with evolutionist argumentation - they tend to offer evolution as the cause because they don't understand evolution theory well enough, evolution can only happen if firstly there is a survival advantage, so natural selection/evolution, isn't the first cause, the available information must come first, so that selection can select it.

 

In a gene pool with long hair and short haired individuals, to enter a hot environment might put selection pressure on the short hair, then and only then, can NS select the short haired, but first you must enter the hot environment and the short hair genes must be available. To say evolution happened, and then came the short hairs caused by evolution, is to put the cart before the horse; " Plants have evolved to produce nutritious fruit so that they are desirable to be eaten by animals which consequently disperse the seeds". 

 

(This is the problem with arguing with a creationist that knows the evolution theory better than evolutionists.)



#10 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 554 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 29 April 2017 - 12:27 PM

1.Nutrients must be present firstly --.> THEN; picked, eaten --> spread. --> natural selection selects for the ones spread, propagating the genes.
 
Only at the, "picked, eaten then spread" stage would evolution favour the selection by selection pressure. The trees with the fruit would then tend to be selected for if their genes were spread and this was beneficial, but as you can see, you can't put the cart before the horse, the nutrients must first be in the fruit before natural selection can take effect.


Just a seed would (coincidentally) have nutrients useful for a foraging animal, a mouse say, but would probably be destroyed in consumption. If a plant produces copious seeds and depends on wind dispersal (like a dandelion) that that's the pay off.  Some sort of fleshy covering would enhance chances of the seeds being swallowed whole (by a larger animal) and therefore less resources need to be put into seed production because they are dispersed by the animal. Then there would be selective pressure towards more nutritious fruit.
 

(This is the problem with arguing with a creationist that knows the evolution theory better than evolutionists.)


Its really not cool to proclaim yourself more knowledgeable (as you do regularly), particularly when you fall flat on your face so often.



#11 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 29 April 2017 - 12:46 PM

 

 

Wibble: Its really not cool to proclaim yourself more knowledgeable (as you do regularly), particularly when you fall flat on your face so often.

 

No, I don't fall flat on my face very often. Your perception is that I fall on my face often. Bare assertion fallacy.

 

The reason I proclaim that I know more about evolution theory is because I have understood that natural selection can only act on already existing information whereas you clearly don't understand how NS works. Flesh on fruit, vitamins and bioflavonoids, cannot be selected for until they are existent. How can they come to exist for no reason, to later be selected, without foresight? Evolution can't select them, and THEN they come to exist. 

 

Why would they exist to begin with in the correct form? Is this magical evolution? For example why did it just happen to create edible flesh to begin with? Because it was beneficial to animals? But how can it know it is beneficial to animals until the animal selects it? Therefore logically it being beneficial to animals, can't be known to evolution until the animal eats of it.

 

Here in this post you made the same mistake again of putting the cart before the horse with the flesh on the fruit. First there must be flesh on the fruit BEFORE selection can act; 

 

It seems to me you haven't studied evolution theory

 

 

 

 

Wibble:  Some sort of fleshy covering would enhance chances of the seeds being swallowed whole (by a larger animal) and therefore less resources need to be put into seed production because they are dispersed by the animal

 

Yes, so what are you saying? That flesh would appear on the fruit? For what reason? Because it is beneficial to animals? But no animal has eaten it yet - it could only be selected for after it is eaten.

 

This would help if the plant had foresight but it doesn't. According to evolution, first the flesh must appear to begin with, before it can be selected because it is beneficial to the tree.

 

You see it only becomes beneficial when the animal eats it, then those trees with the fruit might become more selected for, but firstly the flesh must exist before selection and evolution can happen. (you still have't "got" what I mean yet, I can tell. Perhaps I am not the most eloquent of people, but basically the reason you give of it happening because it is beneficial, assumes that this can CAUSE the flesh to exist, as thought the flesh can come to exist AFTER the benefit.)

 

Why would it exist? Why would the vitamins be PERFECT for humans?

 

Seems if they were designed right from the beginning as they clearly are, then this answers the puzzle.



#12 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 29 April 2017 - 12:59 PM

Analogy; There is a man that walks into a car showroom. Ideally he would like a three wheeled car with false police sirens as this will help him get through traffic. Now imagine that if the showroom sold such personalised cars, they would make big money.

 

So it will be beneficial to the man and the showroom.

 

Now imagine the man walks in and we are now assuming materialism. No foresight, just a chance, random universe like with evolution. The man has never been to the showroom and nobody in the showroom know him or what he wants. Imagine he walks in and there is a three wheel car with police sirens and lights on. 

 

Now imagine I ask you; "is it a coincidence the car he needed is there?" and you said, "no, it is beneficial to them both, therefore there is no coincidence."

 

Obviously you can only know it is, "beneficial" to both, when it is revealed at a later stage, therefore in this scenario, we would only expect the showroom to provide the car when they know what he wants. But how can they know what he wants if he never tells them?

 

How can humans pick fruit that doesn't exist yet, so that evolution can favour fruit that doesn't yet exist, so as to evolve it? Your reason that the flesh is better for animals to disperse, can't be known until the animals eat it and disperse it. So basically the argument from evolution is that evolution knows beforehand that the more fleshy fruit will be better spread by animals? 

 

Can you provide examples of these non-existent smorgasboard of proto-fruits please? That's the only way one of them would be picked, if it was randomly selected from many types. Many incorrect types perhaps. Let me guess, I have to GRANT the smorgasboard of proto-fruits for your theory. (circular reasoning) LOL

 

"I'm LAUGHING at the superior intellect." - Captain Kirk, The Wrath Of Khan. :gotcha:



#13 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 554 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 29 April 2017 - 04:25 PM

No, I don't fall flat on my face very often. Your perception is that I fall on my face often. Bare assertion fallacy.


So you admit you fall flat on your face sometimes ?  :P   Generally you vanish from a thread when you get cornered on science rather than admit defeat on a particular topic.
 

The reason I proclaim that I know more about evolution theory is because I have understood that natural selection can only act on already existing information whereas you clearly don't understand how NS works.


It seems to me you haven't studied evolution theory


It seems to me that you jump to spurious conclusions based on your reading between the lines. You do this a lot, you read a short phrase from someone then take it upon yourself to go off on an unnecessary overlong waffle with patronising analogies that nobody can be bothered to read.

I do not claim to be an expert on the ToE, far from it, and I certainly don’t know a great deal about plant evolution which is why I’ve just made some quick comments in regard to obvious errors/misrepresentations you have made (due to your lack of knowledge on the subject).
 

Flesh on fruit, vitamins and bioflavonoids, cannot be selected for until they are existent. How can they come to exist for no reason, to later be selected, without foresight? Evolution can't select them, and THEN they come to exist.
Why would they exist to begin with in the correct form? Is this magical evolution? For example why did it just happen to create edible flesh to begin with? Because it was beneficial to animals? But how can it know it is beneficial to animals until the animal selects it? Therefore logically it being beneficial to animals, can't be known to evolution until the animal eats of it.
Here in this post you made the same mistake again of putting the cart before the horse with the flesh on the fruit. First there must be flesh on the fruit BEFORE selection can act;


So please don’t try to lecture me with your faux superior knowledge, I wasn’t attempting a thorough and researched post on early angiosperm evolution, I was just pointing out that a fully formed, nutritious juicy fruit did not have to be evolved by the plant before foraging animals would start getting interested. I don’t know what the first steps were but some kind of covering to the seed could have existed for some other purpose that was beneficial to the plant. Perhaps it was to provide the seed itself with nutrients to boost early growth. Maybe it aided flotation for dispersal via water for a plant in a riparian habitat. There could be many reasons, I’m sure you’ll label it storytelling but they are plausible and kicks out your claim that the plant would need foresight in order to later benefit some frugivore.
 

Seems if they were designed right from the beginning as they clearly are, then this answers the puzzle.


They clearly weren't there right from the beginning as there is a sequence of emergence of plant phyla in the fossil record with angiosperms following gymnosperms. No angiosperms till the Triassic and not dominating the flora until later in the Cretaceous. Are you going to assert ecological zonation again ?



#14 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 864 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 29 April 2017 - 05:38 PM

I didn't quite spot the mistake in this reasoning until now.

 

Can anyone see it yet? He's put the cart before the horse.

 

Think about it. How can plants, "evolve to produce nutritious food", so that they will be desirable, if the plant doesn't have foresight? You are making selection the cause, but the nutrients must first be in the fruit.

 

My reading of Wibble's posts is that he is saying you have variation, and out of chance some of the seeds will have some sort of (primitive) flesh, and those are the ones that are then desirable to animals and are thus selected. Don't think that when you go to the market that you are seeing fruit as seen in the wild; virtually everything we eat is a product of thousands of years of selective breeding. 



#15 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 420 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 29 April 2017 - 09:05 PM

Fruit just being tasty would not be beneficial to animals, if they had nothing nutritionally beneficial to them the forager would be wasting its time thereby hindering survival and therefore reproductive chances. However if the fruit contained compounds that the animal actually needed to enhance survival then this trait would be more likely passed on to its offspring.



And of course the animals would all be prescient enough to know that if it was just tasty and delicious but not nutricionally beneficial they would avoid it and not eat it.. In Rhino school they handed out the food pyramid for the little Rhinos showing them to avoid eating just deserts and sweets and stick to vegetables and roughage... I'm sure...

Who said Evolutionists dont have a sense of humor??

#16 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 420 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 29 April 2017 - 09:36 PM

So you admit you fall flat on your face sometimes ?  :P   Generally you vanish from a thread when you get cornered on science rather than admit defeat on a particular topic.
 


It seems to me that you jump to spurious conclusions based on your reading between the lines. You do this a lot, you read a short phrase from someone then take it upon yourself to go off on an unnecessary overlong waffle with patronising analogies that nobody can be bothered to read.
I do not claim to be an expert on the ToE, far from it, and I certainly don’t know a great deal about plant evolution which is why I’ve just made some quick comments in regard to obvious errors/misrepresentations you have made (due to your lack of knowledge on the subject).
 

So please don’t try to lecture me with your faux superior knowledge, I wasn’t attempting a thorough and researched post on early angiosperm evolution, I was just pointing out that a fully formed, nutritious juicy fruit did not have to be evolved by the plant before foraging animals would start getting interested. I don’t know what the first steps were but some kind of covering to the seed could have existed for some other purpose that was beneficial to the plant. Perhaps it was to provide the seed itself with nutrients to boost early growth. Maybe it aided flotation for dispersal via water for a plant in a riparian habitat. There could be many reasons, I’m sure you’ll label it storytelling but they are plausible and kicks out your claim that the plant would need foresight in order to later benefit some frugivore.
 

They clearly weren't there right from the beginning as there is a sequence of emergence of plant phyla in the fossil record with angiosperms following gymnosperms. No angiosperms till the Triassic and not dominating the flora until later in the Cretaceous. Are you going to assert ecological zonation again ?


But you are merely just making an unverified assertion that the Triassic and Cretaceous are different eras of time seperated by millions of years when in fact that is just evolutionists spin on the effects of the flood.. You know, things like polystrate trees that are found through supposedly millions of years of strata? That CLEARLY shows a flood, NOT deep time, But we realize that you guys DESPERATELY need the billions if years in order to pretend that your foolish Molecules to Man Myth was possible...


I wonder if this guy knows as much as you do about amniosperms qnd gymnosperms... Nah.. Couldnt be... LOL

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed.....It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts...The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief."

(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Yahoo (1)