Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Design evidence # 231: taste buds
Percy
Member
Posts: 22505
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 5 of 68 (29672)
01-20-2003 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by DanskerMan
01-20-2003 12:40 PM


My cat's taste buds are so exacting and demanding that she'll only eat the very best (Fancy Feast), and even only four of the flavors are good enough. God must really like cats!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by DanskerMan, posted 01-20-2003 12:40 PM DanskerMan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by John, posted 01-20-2003 1:16 PM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22505
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 9 of 68 (29682)
01-20-2003 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by DanskerMan
01-20-2003 2:09 PM


I believe it is you who are missing the point. And furthermore, how indeed another proof of God, that He designed most creatures with taste buds so they could protect themselves (if they didn't have the mental intelligence to decipher between good and bad) as opposed to his Crown creation who would use this wonderful function for a delightful purpose.
There's a couple answers to this.
First, you're actually just restating your initial point. Man takes delight in taste, only God could create the ability to experience delight, therefore taste is evidence of God. There are many other examples: music, art, humor, etc. The key question is whether our ability to experience delight could only have been provided by God.
It's been explained how taste can be placed within an evolutionary context. That doesn't mean it actually happened that way, it only means that taste is consistent with evolution.
So how do you choose between the two alternatives? If you're being scientific then you look at which one is better supported by the evidence. Evidence of actions by God have traditionally been problematic. We can study evolution in action in the present and project the understanding we develop onto historical scenarios such as the evolution of taste. How does one gather evidence of God in action from which to build up an understanding of how he works in order to do the same thing?
Second, it's important to note that one of the problems with using good things (such as delight) as evidence *for* God is that bad things automatically become evidence *against* God.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by DanskerMan, posted 01-20-2003 2:09 PM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by DanskerMan, posted 01-20-2003 3:23 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22505
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 11 of 68 (29686)
01-20-2003 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by DanskerMan
01-20-2003 3:23 PM


I hear what you are saying. God in action can be seen in millions of lives of followers all over the world, where He is actively ministering to them at a personal level every day. He changes lives every day, He brings peace in the middle of the storm, He heals the broken hearted, He restores the lost.
He works through people to bring hope and salvation to those that seek it. He desires fellowship with all mankind, but many reject Him.
I believe the reason someone would use bad things as evidence against God is because they do not recognize sin and the devil.
Let us postulate two alternatives consistent with the presence of good and evil in the world today:
  • A cold impersonal universe where there is no God, and whatever happens, good or bad, has no rhyme or reason to it.
  • A universe where God and the devil do battle. God does good, the devil does evil.
What experiment, test or evidence would enable you to tell which type of universe you were living in?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by DanskerMan, posted 01-20-2003 3:23 PM DanskerMan has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22505
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 13 of 68 (29688)
01-20-2003 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by David unfamous
01-20-2003 3:57 PM


David unfamous writes:
Evolution is the result of such senses as taste, not taste the result of evolution. Though evolution would fine-tune such senses.
I'm not sure I can agree with this way of expressing it. Cells have always interacted chemically with their environment, and so in that sense one could argue that evolution has been guided by taste, but to call evolution a result of senses like taste seems a bit of a stretch.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by David unfamous, posted 01-20-2003 3:57 PM David unfamous has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22505
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 67 of 68 (33098)
02-24-2003 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Peter
02-24-2003 5:20 PM


I am such a stinker...
Peter writes:
...but this way I get rid of the 'yes' in the meantime
--Percy
PS - Of course, turnabout is fair play - he wouldn't, would he?
PPS - Apologies to Bugs...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Peter, posted 02-24-2003 5:20 PM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Peter, posted 02-24-2003 5:38 PM Percy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024