Design evidence # 231: taste buds

ToE is purposeless and random, non-guided. Supposedly natural selection acting on random mutations "favour" certain characteristics that ensure better survival (survial of the fittest).The purpose of taste buds is to provide pleasure when eating and drinking, which is something "natural selection" could "care" less about. It is direct evidence for a Creator, who created with PURPOSE.------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:
The purpose of taste buds is to provide pleasure when eating and drinking, which is something "natural selection" could "care" less about.

---

​

Ever consider that taste is functional? It gives clues to what is nutritious and to what is poisonous.

​

---

Yes, I did consider that, however, considering the percentage of the time our taste buds are utilized for this function compared to the every day function of pleasure, the most reasonable conclusion is that of a Creator, who not only gave us something for pleasure but also as a tool to protect us.------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:
Yes, I did consider that, however, considering the percentage of the time our taste buds are utilized for this function compared to the every day function of pleasure, the most reasonable conclusion is that of a Creator, who not only gave us something for pleasure but also as a tool to protect us.

​

---

​

You are missing the point. Taste buds are always used for this function. Everytime you eat something you are picking up chemical clues as to its contents. 'Pleasurable' is calibrated towards nutricious while 'distasteful' is calibated towards dangerous. All of this, of course, works on average and isn't absolutely reliable. Still, it only has to work more more times than not to be beneficial.

​

---

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.------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:

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

---

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.Regards,
S------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulK:

So essentially your argument is based on the assumption that taste buds were invented for people who have the good fortune to live in a society where food is so plentiful that they can afford to be choosy.

​

Perhaps you can explain the reasoning that lead you to rely on this assumption ? Or is it the case that you did not adequately consider the matter ?

---

No that is incorrect. You are forgetting that originally everything was "very good", there wasn't the separation of rich and poor, starving and over-indulgent that we have in our day. Therefore taste buds were designed for ALL people but due to our sinful nature, and the lack of worldwide compassion, there are people who aren't as blessed as others.
If you think about it, there's enough money in the world that no one should be poor and starving, and everyone could enjoy the use of their taste buds, as our Creator had intended.------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coragyps:

quote:

---

as opposed to his Crown creation who would use this wonderful function for a delightful purpose.

---

So this implies that I should go engage in hot jungle sex with Sandra Bullock and Winona Ryder simultaneously? That would be a wonderful function, and likely would bring me great delight. Somehow, though, Sonnike, I don't think you (or my wife) would approve.

---

LOL...no you are right, we wouldn't approve....and I think you are stretching it to try to accommodate that statement.It does bring up an interesting point, and that is that your heart tells you that doing something like that is wrong; God instills in man's heart what is right and what is wrong (not to mention writing it down), and so you are exhibiting your God-given moral choice by abstaining as you should (not that those two women would consider sleeping with you anyway..LOL)------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

holmes: "Interestingly enough my heart tells me such a threesome would be fantastic. My girlfriend would also approve, and more than likely want to take part in that hot jungle sex scenario. Lucky me."
---------------------------Wow, a clear demonstration of the utter moral negligence and de-valued thinking of evolutionary minds. This is exactly the kind of junk that belief in ToE produces...which then leads to pornography..which leads to child porn...which devalues lives of children...which leads to abortions...genocides..homocides...suicides...etcYes, it is clearly a wonderful thing to realize that we are an "accident", we have no Maker, we are a product of chance...no different than the animals...what value has anything....digressing...I'm not sure exactly what you want me to respond to in the rest of your post, I agree with the gluttony part..I disagree with the "I know of no basic foodstuff that on its own creates delight" part. I would say that many natural foods are delightful, apples, oranges, strawberries, etc. But it's all about taste.My point basically is that BECAUSE we are able to enjoy food and drink, thanks to our tastebuds, and also defend ourselves against poisons, it points towards a Creator who WANTED us to do these things.
He specifically designed that function in us for pleasure, and for protection.
Now, you are welcome to see it any other way you want, but to me it is just another piece of evidence that suggests it was put there for a reason, and didn't just happen by chance and through time.Regards,
S------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

Holmes: "1) The pleasure of taste is no different than any other pleasure, except if one imposes personal prudish standards onto the situation. Thus, logically, sexual pleasure OUGHT to be counted as much a sign of design as taste... if pleasure is to be a sign of design!"
--------------------------
S: Amen brother! I agree. I believe sex (the way God intended it to be, ie. between a husband and wife) was specifically designed to be both pleasurable and functional..thank you for pointing out another piece of evidence of the hand of the Maker.
----------------------------------
"2) Along those lines some Xtian denominations would support your claim, and others would deny it. Showing that even Xtian thought is not unanimous on the design argument you just posed... or at least not in ascribing the particular authors as you have done."
---------------------------------
S: Okay, that's not a problem.
-----------------------------
"3) I can, and do, argue that the beneficial trait of taste could have arisen through evolutionary mechanisms due to its beneficial aspects, and that the vast amount of pleasure we derive from food is due to playing with our food (and our tastebuds) to encite "delight"."
-----------------------------------
S: Well, that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. To me it simply makes more sense that it was designed that way in the first place.I would say that the burden of proof lies on your shoulders to try to imagine a scenario for the appearance of tastebuds via evolutionary mechanisms.Not only do you have to account for taste pores, taste cells, supporting cells, connective tissue, and sensory nerve fibers, you also have to account for sweet receptors, salt receptors, sour receptors, and bitter receptors. Each located in a specific region on the tongue.Good luck to you.Regards,
S-----------------------------------------------------
"There are no evolutionists in Hell"

""There are no evolutionists in Hell"lpetrich: So Charles Darwin is in Heaven, getting to survey the evolution of life at first hand and wishing he could return to Earth to tell everybody what he has seen? "
--------------------------------
Either you didn't get the point, or you are trying to be funny..I'll assume it's a joke.
Unless Darwin accepted Christ on his deathbed, he is INDEED in Hell realizing that he was WRONG, thus he is now a hell-bound Creationist.
Therefore, there are no evolutionists or atheists in hell.------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."