Mary - I'm a carnivour - no I guess actually an omnivor, but nonetheless - I like fresh meat. I likely would pass the road kill in favor of a freshly killed T-bone steak!
Jeff
"Carnivores were designed to eat plants!"
by Anony-Mouse 27 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Mary
I likely would pass the road kill
Hey Jeff----where d'ya think McDonalds gets their meat from?
-
AK - Jeff
Hey Jeff----where d'ya think McDonalds gets their meat from?
Thats why I don't go there often - though the occasional road-killed Big Mac does call me.
Jeff
-
metatron
People are sometimes warned that cats in particular cannot be vegetarians. They are designed to
eat meat. As to dinosaurs, triceratops skeletons have been found with healed wounds from tooth
marks that forensically match T Rex. Also, fossilized stomach contents of some dinosaurs indicate
that they were carnivores.
metatron
-
tijkmo
passed away with the era of harpsichords and powdered wigs.
i was at elton john gig last night.
harpsicord and powdered wig still going strong
-
reneeisorym
Another thing I had never even thought about - How freakin obvious is that. They must have put something in my baptism water.
That's me too. But its more than their teeth -- their agility and speed are all made for hunting. You don't see a cow or even a deer built quite like the lion.
-
changeling
This is one of those "issues" I had for years before I gave up and faded
What about the food chain? If animals don't eat other animals, the balance of nature would go haywire! It is the height of ignorance to believe such silliness.
Reason #1 for baning education and independant thinikng.
changeling
-
AlanF
I can just picture The Great Designer mulling over whether to put muscle or nerve toxins in a Fer de Lance to be better able to subdue fleeing bananas.
The last time the Society tackled this issue, so far as I know, was in a late-1982 Awake! article series. The 'reasoning' went like this: "After man's fall the creation became chaotic, so it's no surprise that some animals fell to eating one another." This is of course completely stupid, and it appears that a lot of readers said this to the Society. At the time, Awake! usually included negative comments in the "Comments from Readers" section, and it was amusing to read such comments and the Society's lame responses. Not long after that, negative comments were rarely printed. Nor have I seen any discussions of the carnivore problem since. I suspect that a memo was sent to the Writing Staff, "Do not touch this issue!"
AlanF
-
Terry
The last time the Society tackled this issue, so far as I know, was in a late-1982 Awake! article series. The 'reasoning' went like this: "After man's fall the creation became chaotic, so it's no surprise that some animals fell to eating one another."
A cow eats grass successfully because it has 5 stomachs which are able to create a chemistry that extracts and converts nutrients into protein.
A dog eats grass to help it throw up.
If you give a dog catfood it will sicken and may eventually die.
If you give a cat wheat, barley and oats....just try to keep it alive.
The Awake! explanation is similar to putting your finger into a crystal clear aquarium and stirring up the sediment on the bottom. Pretty soon you can't see what is going on. But, you can guess.
The Awake! can "answer" without saying anything and get away with it because the knuckleheads in Brooklyn encourge speculation in some areas while forbidding it in others.
-
hillary_step
Alan,
The last time the Society tackled this issue, so far as I know, was in a late-1982 Awake! article series. The 'reasoning' went like this: "After man's fall the creation became chaotic, so it's no surprise that some animals fell to eating one another." This is of course completely stupid, and it appears that a lot of readers said this to the Society. At the time, Awake! usually included negative comments in the "Comments from Readers" section, and it was amusing to read such comments and the Society's lame responses. Not long after that, negative comments were rarely printed. Nor have I seen any discussions of the carnivore problem since. I suspect that a memo was sent to the Writing Staff, "Do not touch this issue!"
I may have related this tale to you before, but this moment seems apt for a re-release.
In 1981 I was studying the Bible with a Zoologist who worked for the BBC, quite a well know name in the industry. We spent many hours discussing the whole concept of the hunter/predator instinct which clearly undermined the nonsense taught by the WTS regarding animal life.
Previously, I had served for a few months as a (failed - lack of discipline...lol) Temp CO and was still Pioneering, but due to an encounter at a Pioneer School a couple of years earlier was having doubts about many things. A subject for another day. I mention the Pioneering/CO aspect as I hoped at the time that it might ensure some credibility when the thesis was received. I had also designed part of a booklet for the WTS, which they used, which I also hoped would act as a gate to the Secret Garden!
Towards the end of that year he and I decided to embark upon a thesis that we would send to the WTS in the hopes of getting them to see sense over the matter. The 'study', being a zoologist was very well informed and I collated all the evidence that was needed, including numerous examples showing that all life from the smallest microbe to the largest mammal needs to feed on one another is some way or the other, in order to survive. The only logical conclusions that could be reached were that :
1) God designed animals with the ability to evolve defence and attack mechanisms in order to survive.
2) Like many YEC chose to believe, that when mankind 'fell from grace', the body structures of animals changed. They use the scripture in Genesis as proof, where Eve was to have increased pain in childbirth, to 'prove' that her body structute had also changed.
The thesis reached around sixty pages with diagrams, examples etc, but I was very careful to avoid the controversial areas that would have it thrown in the bin before it was even read. I did not allow for the option that the whole Genesis account was bunkum, at least in writing, for obvious reasons.
We submitted the thesis in December 1981 and awaited a reply. Four months went past and then a letter arrived for me from Mill Hill. The contents went something like this.
Dear Brother Step,
Thank you for your package which we have read. We commend your hard work in putting this essay together, but would point out that we have our own researchers to do this sort of work. We encourage you to keep Pioneering etc. etc.
Your Brothers in the Poodles service.
Sixty pages dismissed in a few sentences, none of which attended to any of the issues raised in the thesis. It was at this stage that it became clear to me that the WTS has absolutely no interest in truth, but will easily dismiss truth in favor of 'The Truth'.
When the 1982 article was published in the AWAKE! magazine, I was horrified to see a three page underlining of the WTS traditional view of this whole issue, a view which they have remained silent about for some while now but still officially adhere to.
HS