+116

Fried food is proof of Gods existence. Only an intelligent designer could think to create a plant that can be ground into powder and used to cover something so that you can put it in a heated liquid and make it crispier and taste 10x more delicious. Nature has absolutely no use for this kind of chemical reaction, and yet it exists. amirite?

70%Yeah You Are30%No Way
TheCatalysts avatar Religion
Share
5 36
The voters have decided that TheCatalyst is right! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.

I think (hope) you're being sarcastic, but just to clear things up, humans invented the frying method of cooking. We took things that nature created to make new things of our own.

For that matter, humans invented cooking, period. So if you're going to say this, you might as well say that ANY food humans have ever cooked must have been made by God because nothing is cooked in nature.

@wobbuffet I think (hope) you're being sarcastic, but just to clear things up, humans invented the frying method of cooking...

(wobbuffet):I was not really being sarcastic, but I wasn't completely serious. It was a post that just came from me making an observation about frying food. Oil is a liquid and yet when you heat it and stick something in it it gets harder rather than moist. And that there are plants that are crushed and work in such a specific with oil. It is so simple, and yet still complex. Such a thing just seems as though someone designed it, rather than being coincidental.

TheCatalysts avatar TheCatalyst Yeah You Are -8Reply
@TheCatalyst (wobbuffet):I was not really being sarcastic, but I wasn't completely serious. It was a post that just came from me...

1. There's nothing about the cooking properties of flour and oil that defy the laws of physics.

2. Your taste in food is culturally defined. 20,000 years ago, a human may have told you that a simple boiled potato was the most delicious thing on earth. A few hundred years ago, people probably started becoming bored with potatoes as they moved on to more delicious things like French Fries. Now, we have to cover them in salt, ketchup, melted cheese, chilie, etc to make them interesting.

3. If God gave humans fried food as a gift, surely he wouldn't make it cause heart disease. If anything, you should be arguing that fried food was sent to us from the devil, as a way to make us commit sin (gluttony) and then promptly die before our time.

4. YouTube video thumbnail

@soberlikekesha Oh so you are serious? holy crap I thought this was all a joke. Wow I am sad now :(

It kinda is a joke, though I can argue it seriously. As I said in a comment I previously made, this wasmostly intended as a way of saying fried foodis heavenly. If that makes sense.

TheCatalysts avatar TheCatalyst Yeah You Are -2Reply
@TheCatalyst It kinda is a joke, though I can argue it seriously. As I said in a comment I previously made, this wasmostly...

I can get the joke that it's "heavenly" but I don't get the part where you can argue it seriously. I read all your previous comments, so I know your reasoning though.

@soberlikekesha I can get the joke that it's "heavenly" but I don't get the part where you can argue it seriously. I read all your...

I argue it seriously in kind of a "what if" sorta way, hard to explain. but of course I don't take the existence of fried foods as actual proof of God's existence, that would just be preposterous.

TheCatalysts avatar TheCatalyst Yeah You Are +4Reply

Why would nature need a reason for anything? Seems counter-intuitive.

@TristantheGreat Why would nature need a reason for anything? Seems counter-intuitive.

things usually develop in nature (according to natural selection) to give the organism that has developed it an advantage that allows it to better survive. how could a reaction like this be coincidental? when you think about it there is absolutely no reason for such a reaction to exist. but aside from that this post was really just another way of saying that fried foods are heavenly.

TheCatalysts avatar TheCatalyst Yeah You Are -3Reply
@TheCatalyst things usually develop in nature (according to natural selection) to give the organism that has developed it an...

"things usually develop in nature..."

If you use the word "usually", then you're smart enough to know that using an absolute to explain nature is idiotic.

Therefor your whole "there is >absolutely< no reason for such a reaction to exist" argument falls apart.

Anonymous +2Reply
@"things usually develop in nature..." If you use the word "usually", then you're smart enough to know that using...

I only say usually because things such as natural selection and evolution from which I based the argument are theories and not fact. and therefore there is no way to know whether or not everything that develops naturally is done so for the purpose of survival.

so then can you name me one purpose for such a reaction? and can you tell me an instance were such a reaction has occurred in nature?

TheCatalysts avatar TheCatalyst Yeah You Are -2Reply
@TheCatalyst I only say usually because things such as natural selection and evolution from which I based the argument are...

The term theory, when stated in scientific terms is the same as fact practically. EVOLUTION is not an "opinion" of scientists, it's blatantly factual and can be tested throughout time.

Anonymous +5Reply
@The term theory, when stated in scientific terms is the same as fact practically. EVOLUTION is not an "opinion" of...

sigh

Considering we're doing evolution in IB Biology at the moment, I think I should clear a few things up here...

First, @TheCatalyst, your perception of evolution is wrong anyways. Things don't develop in nature TO give an organism a better advantage. Random mutations in the gene pool cause slightly different genotypical and phenotypical developments, WHICH MAY give these organisms a slightly better advantage in the competition for survival. That's natural selection. It's not that things develop for the purpose of an advantage, it's that what develops may cause an advantage, which is selected for as the organisms with an advantage will be more fit.

Second, @anon (who probably won't reply), you're wrong too. Theory =/= fact. Evolution isn't an opinion, but it cannot be proven, as we don't actually know what happened, and there are missing links in the fossil record. That's why it's a theory and not a theorem..it hasn't be proven and can't be completely proven...we know that evolution happens, but the theory of evolution seeks to explain why, when, where, and how it happens, and while parts the theory have been shown (fossils, HIV evolving), not all can be

@Paradoxal sigh Considering we're doing evolution in IB Biology at the moment, I think I should clear a few things up...

That's why I said practically if you had read my entire sentence. Like you said we can PROVE evolution happens we just haven't figured out how yet. Doesn't change that evolution does happen. We still don't know everything about the human brain but should we say it's just a theory humans have one? No because we can prove that we do, just like evolution can be proven to happen.

Anonymous +1Reply
@Paradoxal sigh Considering we're doing evolution in IB Biology at the moment, I think I should clear a few things up...

well I won't pretend to completely understand the theory of evolution because I only know the basics of what it is, so I'll go on and take your word on that, thank you for clarifying.

TheCatalysts avatar TheCatalyst Yeah You Are +1Reply
@The term theory, when stated in scientific terms is the same as fact practically. EVOLUTION is not an "opinion" of...

a scientific theory is not fact, that's why it's called a theory.

Noun 1. scientific theory - a theory that explains scientific observations

it is the the explanation that they come up with for there observations, that doesn't mean necessarily that there explanation is correct. they give the best explanation they can give based on their understanding of what has occurred. very few things scientific can actually be declared fact. in fact just recently the laws of physics were challenged by European scientists who observed subatomic particles traveling faster than light.

TheCatalysts avatar TheCatalyst Yeah You Are -3Reply
@TheCatalyst a scientific theory is not fact, that's why it's called a theory. Noun 1. scientific theory - a theory that...

You are correct, that it MAY not be correct, but you can basically speculate anything isn't real. Even if you catch a guy red-handed stealing something, and there is a court hearing, you could say it's just a "theory" that he stole it, because maybe someone that looks just like him came in from and alternate universe came in and stole the item, and then switched places with them while the alternate person was in jail. Technically you could say he's not guilty, just like you could say evolution is not real, there is just no other plausible explanation available.

@yay_im_wrong You are correct, that it MAY not be correct, but you can basically speculate anything isn't real. Even if you catch...

@TheCatalyst, Fair enough, and you're welcome :) (also, it's worth admitting that I don't know everything about evolution, of course)

@Anon: No...you said..."[evolution] is the same as fact practically". And I didn't say it could be proven. I specifically said we've seen instances of it happening, but we can't prove it. Your brain analogy is silly. Of course we know that the human brain exists, but there ARE theories as to how and why it works, and how and why it retains, learns, and integrates information, based on observations....attempting to be proven my fMRIs and other brain-imaging technology

Argue the premise of theories all day long, if you like, but most widely accepted and strongly scientific theories are that because they do make sense. They provide a reasonable explanation for what we see...it's silly to argue that there's little fact, because invariably people will say "It's all relative" and "You can't prove it" and "How do we know." That's silly. There are things that make sense. Gravity exists. We know tons about cells. There's a million and one facts. Evolution is a theory simply because we can't observe millions of years of evolutionary history.

@Paradoxal @TheCatalyst, Fair enough, and you're welcome :) (also, it's worth admitting that I don't know everything about...

Also, sorry if I'm being kinda obnoxious-- I just feel sort of strongly about all of this.

Also, sorry if I say inaccurate or just plain wrong things. My knowledge is limited too.

@yay_im_wrong Why did you reply to me, you didn't address me at all.

More apologies...just a mistake...hit the wrong reply button. As you have seen, I replied to the other two, but didn't hit the right button...yeah...derp.

Sorry for the notification(s) bud.

No.

Anonymous +2Reply

lol why would nature create something that can basically destroy our heart and arteries.
i think that might be the reason fried food isnt natural, not because "god doesnt love us"

GOD DAMMIT NATURE HAS NO USE FOR ANYTHING BECAUSE ITS ALL JUST FUCKING RANDOM THIS DOESN'T PROVE SHIT. Also, on a related note, people who say "LOL srsly who was sitting in a room one day and came up with the word "x" to describe "y" LOL that's so random xD" piss me off. Humans didn't just sit down one day and decide to create words, our language has developed over thousands of years to what it is today.

Mmmmm... mozzarella cheese sticks.

StickCavemans avatar StickCaveman Yeah You Are +1Reply

If this is a joke, then YYA.

Well, just to be simple, I like fried foods.

I can't believe how many people seem to be taking this seriously.

Thatbitchs avatar Thatbitch Yeah You Are 0Reply
@Thatbitch I can't believe how many people seem to be taking this seriously.

If you ever talked to this guy you'd know he's completely serious and this is how he reasons. It's kinda depressing, honestly

Thatbitchs avatar Thatbitch Yeah You Are +1Reply
@Thatbitch Oh my...well pardon me, I didn't know someone could actually be that stupid.

no I am not serious, as you should see stated above in the comments. although I did put out a couple of of semi serious "what if" arguments. SemiColin does not know me and can not accurately gauge when I am or am not being serious, he/she is simply someone who I must have angered in an argument on this site and holds some kind of grudge against me for doing so.

TheCatalysts avatar TheCatalyst Yeah You Are +2Reply

I'm guessing you're black if you live fried food this much..

@fckin_A I'm guessing you're black if you live fried food this much..

as a matter of fact I am, at least for the most part.

TheCatalysts avatar TheCatalyst Yeah You Are +1Reply
Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.