Cinnamon: I love it! And it's one of the many reason if I were only a mere theist, I would SUSPECT that my Creator is at least fond of me.

5wize said:
Did God provide Pufferfish instruction or did he wait till a host of poor unfortunate souls that must not have meant a lot to Him helped us figure that out through their deaths?
Click to expand...
Do you think our DNA is as originally created?
 
5wize said:
I didn’t change the subject. I pointed out your error and framed it correctly for you and in thus doing refuted the OPs intention, an intention that you weren’t even aware of... even though you made it.
Click to expand...
Are you saying God didn't give us tasty foods?
 
stiggy wiggy said:
And yet you did. The subject was the supposed evolution of spices, and/or the evolution of our taste buds. You changed it to puddles which don't evolve at all.
Click to expand...
No. you don’t even know what your own topic was. Your topic was why are spices so tasty if they are not evolutionally necessary based on nutritional value? That’s a teleological argument.
 
CrowCross said:
Are you saying God didn't give us tasty foods?
Click to expand...
Yes. There’s a lot of stuff down here we mash, cook, carve, chew, grind, alter, strip, separate, pilfer, skin, engineer, cover up with gravy, die from - either with slow arteriosclerosis or immediate choking or poison (who designs to put food in the same hole you breath with - dumb). We gather lots of crap to fill a belly in need in many different and unintended ways if you look at the original design of our base materials. Doesn’t look like God really designed much to be used as is.
 
CrowCross said:
Do you think our DNA is as originally created?
Click to expand...
I don’t know. I never looked into that. I don’t know much about evolution either. I see the world as a natural revelation, and I see no design in it. Just patterns developed over time. Some efficient, some just goofy and nonsensical, but got the job done anyway, like the eye, or the organelle.
 
5wize said:
Doesn’t look like God really designed much to be used as is.
Click to expand...

He gave us a variety of uses for a variety of gifts. Ever heard of George Washington Carver?

"In all, he developed more than 300 food, industrial and commercial products from peanuts, including milk, Worcestershire sauce, punches, cooking oils, salad oil, paper, cosmetics, soaps and wood stains. He also experimented with peanut-based medicines, such as antiseptics, laxatives and goiter medications."
www.history.com

George Washington Carver: Facts, Inventions & Quotes | HISTORY

George Washington Carver, born into slavery, was a scientist and inventor who developed hundreds of products using peanuts (but not peanut butter) and other crops.
www.history.com www.history.com
 
stiggy wiggy said:
The topic was evolution. I wrote the OP.



Correct. So you changed your mind in the middle of your own paragraph. Now my subject did involve evolution. How wishy-washy can you get?
Click to expand...
No. Your salient question was why they are so tasty if so unnecessary. That has nothing to do with evolution, but environmental circumstance - thus the quintessential core of your OP is a teleological question.
 
Last edited:
stiggy wiggy said:
He gave us a variety of uses for a variety of gifts. Ever heard of George Washington Carver?

"In all, he developed more than 300 food, industrial and commercial products from peanuts, including milk, Worcestershire sauce, punches, cooking oils, salad oil, paper, cosmetics, soaps and wood stains. He also experimented with peanut-based medicines, such as antiseptics, laxatives and goiter medications."
www.history.com

George Washington Carver: Facts, Inventions & Quotes | HISTORY

George Washington Carver, born into slavery, was a scientist and inventor who developed hundreds of products using peanuts (but not peanut butter) and other crops.
www.history.com www.history.com
Click to expand...
Yes I have... thus proving my point. Thanks.
 
5wize said:
Yes. There’s a lot of stuff down here we mash, cook, carve, chew, grind, alter, strip, separate, pilfer, skin, engineer, cover up with gravy, die from - either with slow arteriosclerosis or immediate choking or poison (who designs to put food in the same hole you breath with - dumb). We gather lots of crap to fill a belly in need in many different and unintended ways if you look at the original design of our base materials. Doesn’t look like God really designed much to be used as is.
Click to expand...
Many foods have been redesigned.

I was asked to buy some sugar free mints....so I bought some. It even said sugar free on the package. So it must then be good for you. The sugar was replaced with aspartame. Aspartame is good for you? Right?
 
5wize said:
I don’t know. I never looked into that. I don’t know much about evolution either. I see the world as a natural revelation, and I see no design in it. Just patterns developed over time. Some efficient, some just goofy and nonsensical, but got the job done anyway, like the eye, or the organelle.
Click to expand...
Interesting take...How did the organelle evolve? How did the organelle evolve to "build" other organelle? Then again you said you don't know much about evolutionism so why should I even be asking you?
 
CrowCross said:
Many foods have been redesigned.

I was asked to buy some sugar free mints....so I bought some. It even said sugar free on the package. So it must then be good for you. The sugar was replaced with aspartame. Aspartame is good for you? Right?
Click to expand...
No. that stuff is crap. I’ll take the sugar any day.
 
CrowCross said:
Interesting take...How did the organelle evolve? How did the organelle evolve to "build" other organelle? Then again you said you don't know much about evolutionism so why should I even be asking you?
Click to expand...
Like I said, I don’t know about evolution, so I wouldn’t try to attach some evolutionary process to it that I don’t understand. I just see what is presented, and biologically speaking, the organelle it is a pretty elaborate and convoluted way to get a very simple outcome. If that’s designed, I’d personally go back to the drawing board and eliminate many potential points of failure and unintended outcomes.
 
5wize said:
Like I said, I don’t know about evolution, so I wouldn’t try to attach some evolutionary process to it that I don’t understand. I just see what is presented, and biologically speaking, the organelle it is a pretty elaborate and convoluted way to get a very simple outcome. If that’s designed, I’d personally go back to the drawing board and eliminate many potential points of failure and unintended outcomes.
Click to expand...
I've presented several videos on forums that show what organelle do. I've come to the conclusion that thy are not a product of deep time, chance and mutations. Heck, even the genetic code...DNA...which is followed to produce organelle is so complicated and sophisticated intelligent design is the only logical answer. Because some scientist say they evolved doesn't make it so.
 
CrowCross said:
I've presented several videos on forums that show what organelle do. I've come to the conclusion that thy are not a product of deep time, chance and mutations. Heck, even the genetic code...DNA...which is followed to produce organelle is so complicated and sophisticated intelligent design is the only logical answer. Because some scientist say they evolved doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...
You make it sound deflationary with "some scientists". How about, the experts in the field agree that these things evolved.

What expertise in the field do you have? Just because some religious fundamentalists say they didn't evolve doesn't make it so.
 
CrowCross said:
I've presented several videos on forums that show what organelle do. I've come to the conclusion that thy are not a product of deep time, chance and mutations. Heck, even the genetic code...DNA...which is followed to produce organelle is so complicated and sophisticated intelligent design is the only logical answer. Because some scientist say they evolved doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...
True, but complexity is less of a design indication compared to deep time as a designer is usually want to break down complexity with iterated improvement, not build more onto it..
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top