Design evidence # 231: taste buds

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:

---

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.

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."

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:

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.

---

So your argument assumes that Genesis is literally true, and that humans were created, not evolved. That's begging the question. You are assuming your conclusion in advance.

Topic moved from "Evolution" forum, to "Intelligent Design" forum.Adminnemooseus------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sonnikke+++++++++++++++++++
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by Coragyps=============
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)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++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.You see we were not brought up to HATE any particular sensory input, and it seems arbitrary from an outsider's (ie, unindoctrinated) viewpoint to choose pleasure in one region of the body as better or worse than another.I mean how do you rationally determine which is good and which is bad without the "good book" as your guide (ie prejudiced influence)?To be honest, there are cultures and even christian denominations which would dispute your attributing the "wonders" of taste to God, and just as quickly toss that trick back to the devil as you have done with "delight" from nerve endings in specific areas of our skin.After all, it is the delight of taste which leads toward gluttony on the part of man, which is just as sinful as lust. Isn't the purest path that when we sense hunger we eat, and when it is no more we stop eating and to ignore the pleasure derived as wanton desire?Or do you have some intimate piece of knowledge which proves fellow Xtians wrong (making taste less wicked than tingly flesh), and at the same time proves agnostics wrong (making tingly flesh more wicked than taste)? I don't see that coming from anything other than a prude's interpretation of the bible (one might note that the anabaptists enjoyed sexual pleasure).To me pleasure is pleasure and I don't see what mechanism allows you to divvy up better or worse between pleasures, and so authorship to separate entities.Also, why COULDN'T it be that what is edible tends to send signals which are pleasurable, and that inedible things send bad signals, and that it is MAN who has chosen to select and refine what he puts into his meals to achieve "delight"? I know of no basic foodstuff that on its own creates delight (except Honey?, but that is manufactured as well). After all, Strawberries are fine, but even they are better with some sugar on top.holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 01-21-2003]

You guys are forgetting a key piece of wisdom:All humans are animals, therefore all animals are human.THAT is why your cat likes certain foods - cats are really people!

I think that sonnikke is making a big fat non sequitur about the inferred "designer" of humanity.That's because we could be the result of genetic-engineering experiments performed on long-ago apes by extraterrestrial visitors over the last 5-7 million years, which is something like what the Raelians believe.

quote:

---

Also, why COULDN'T it be that what is edible tends to send signals which are pleasurable, and that inedible things send bad signals, and that it is MAN who has chosen to select and refine what he puts into his meals to achieve "delight"?

---

Indeed, I think what you say is the case.Otherwise, individual taste couldn't be changed. We couldn't "learn to appreciate" certain foods whith strong or bitter flavors, like bitter greens or coffee, for example.

quote:

---

I know of no basic foodstuff that on its own creates delight (except Honey?, but that is manufactured as well). After all, Strawberries are fine, but even they are better with some sugar on top.

---

I would say that you aren't eating the right strawberries. I have eaten amazing, miniscule heirloom-variety alpine strawberries which would have been ruined if sugar, or anything else had been added to them. They were so amazing that my husband and I ended up eating them while standing over the sink, even though I initally only wanted to taste one to decide what dish I wanted to create with them.There are many, many completely unprocessed foods that can be enjoyed all alone. Anyone who has eaten a cucumber or tomato or fresh peas while standing in the middle of a vegetable garden can tell you that.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-27-2003]

quote:

---

I would say that you aren't eating the right strawberries.

---

I need some of those strawberries. I don't know where you live but I can't find any good ones here.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

"Amazing, miniscule heirloom-variety alpine strawberries"... ruined if anything, even sugar, was added to them? Besides such strawberries not being common I think you need to come clean with something schraf.You either live in the garden of eden or Willy Wonka's Chocolate factory!Just kidding. [Quote]by schraf++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There are many, many completely unprocessed foods that can be enjoyed all alone. Anyone who has eaten a cucumber or tomato or fresh peas while standing in the middle of a vegetable garden can tell you that.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Be careful, or sonnike will think you agree with #231.I understand what you are saying, and indeed I do enjoy cucumbers and blueberries and strawberries. I wasn't trying to say all things unprocessed are unenjoyable. Simply that none, or very few, by themselves elicit ecstatic delight to the order that we have created through processing.Most meals, if left in their unaltered states, would be acceptable, maybe even mildly enjoyable, but not "delightful." After all you cannot survive on strawberries, cucumbers, and peas alone. You need nuts or meats of some kind to fulfill dietary requirements and while nuts are pretty good just by themselves, they taste better when salted (or honey roasted) and unprocessed meats (ie, uncooked)... blech.What I find interesting as well, and perhaps Sonnike can enlighten us on this, is that not all foods taste the same to everyone. For example the spice cilantro is loved by many many people. Yet for many Northern Europeans (my girlfriend and her entire family included) cilantro is not just unappealing, it actually sickens them.At the same time many Dutch eat a certain berry that they say is delicious, yet it makes me sick (that is just the taste of it makes me ill).And this is all in the unprocessed stage. If you want to talk about cultural tastes in processed foods, I have only one thing to say: Kim Chee.Oh wait, how could I forget? The TOWER OF BABBLE! There's the answer for all those different tastes in food.Anyhow, one might note that there is a spice that works to improve ANY meal in ANY culture... hunger. I've had grilled cheese sandwiches which tasted as good as barbecued steak after missing a number of meals.holmes

I am sorry for my digression. Food kinda gets me going. I am a professional in the food industry and I work at a place that has some of the best food in the entire country. I am truly spoiled in that department.I totally agree with you about the "delightful" part. Our human culture has developed our taste from something that can be used to determine what is safe to eat to that which is pleasurable to eat.This is why so many of our species overeat protein and fat; those of our ancestors who relished the taste of protein and fat would eat more of these high-energy foods and would be able to survive famine times better than those who didn't have a taste for it, and they passed on this preference to us.Your point about hunger is related as well.

Oh, and for your distaste with the idea of unprocessed meats...What about carpaccio and sushi?I love them both!

I live in Michigan, and those alpine strawberries were grown at a Community Organic Farm in which my husband bought a share one summer.Unfortunately, most of the US's agriculture is geared towards growing food that has great shelf life, is cheap to produce and looks perfect, rather than for flavor or nutrition.That is why most of the produce and meat you buy at big grocery stores doesn't have much flavor.Try to seek out local organic growers and farmer's markets and community or co-op run farms if you are interested in finding amazing produce in your area. I should think that Austin would be a great place to grow strawberries in the early spring.You could even grow some berries yourself in a strawberry pot. You can buy the plants on line, and call around to your local nurseries to see what they offer. Have a look here:http://www.papagenos.com/plantdb/plants.asp?catid=18Here also is a link to your local chapter of an organization that might be helpful to you. In case you haven't guessed, I am a member of my local chapter:http://www.slowfood-austinhillcountry.org/[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-27-2003]

Sushi and carpaccio... I stand corrected!Personally I can't stand sushi, but then I don't like much fish, much less uncooked fish. Of course that doesn't prevent me from recognizing
how popular it is.Actually, I need to announce another bit of ignorance. What is carpaccio? I've never heard of that (though I'll take your word that it's uncooked meat).Thank you schraf for the correction.holmes