Was It Designed? (My head hurts)

Cadellin

I know I shouldn't--I tell myself this over and over--but I can't help peeking at these silly articles. And then I see this and my head really starts hurting: So the gannet, if you don't know (and why would you?) is a seabird that feeds on fish. It dives to great depths in its hunting (okay, fishing). So this silly article on JW.Org is all about how amazing the bird's diving ability is, how deep it can go, how easily it pops back up to the surface "when finished diving." What is strikingly omitted is WHY the bird is diving. But of course, that little pebble in the JW shoe is ignored.

What do you think? Did the gannet’s diving ability evolve? Or was it designed?

Well, JW, if it was DESIGNED, that means God DESIGNED the bird to eat meat (well, fish). And how do you reconcile that with your literal eisegesis? Hmm?

sir82

There was a laughable "Questions From Readers" article from sometime in the 60s that speculated that lions, tigers, etc. had razor sharp claws & teeth so that they could "shred tough vegetation" in the garden of Eden.

I guess coconuts? I dunno.

The QFR never addressed why cheetahs were "designed" to run for bursts of up to 60 mph. All the coconut trees I've ever seen move considerably slower than that.

steve2

In one of their irritating evolution versus creation brochures, the writer(s) marvel at the ingenuity of a poisonous spider and its ability to defend itself against enormous odds. Funny, I thought, that this "creation" that they marvel over is a deftly moving killer machine that can even imperil any human who happens to be in its path - no mention of that in the brochure. Did Jehovah "design" this spider's deadly force? And don't give me that crap about the animal kingdom "changing" since the fall of Adam and Eve.

Cadellin

I know--the lack of logical thought is mind-boggling.

Magnum

I noticed that kind of stuff the whole time (decades) I was in JWdom and made notes about it. It really bothered me.

One article I remember from probably twenty or more years ago was about a bird of prey that had double eyelids (two on each eye). One of the eyelids was translucent and it allowed the bird to blink and keep its eyes moist while pursuing prey without losing sight of the prey. "Oh, what a marvel of design!" I was thinking that that indicated that animals were designed to hunt and kill, yet, JW theology says otherwise. Extreme contradiction; it just didn't (and doesn't) make sense.

Another article was about a bird who lived in a reed habitat and when on the ground in the reeds, would sway with them in the wind so as not to be noticed by predators. "Oh, what a marvel of design!" I was thinking "Why would an animal be designed with such a defense when there were no predators when it was designed?"

It's not only the offensive capabilities we see in nature that indicate that animals were "designed" to kill, but also all the vast defensive capabilities; they wouldn't be needed if there were no predators.

sir82

Here is the quote I alluded to earlier:

"Another thing, is one justified in concluding that the way an animal uses its body today is the only possible way? As an example, a tiger uses its fangs and claws to catch, kill and tear apart other animals. Yet, could not these same fangs and claws be used in tearing apart heavy vegetation and ripping off husks and shells?" Watchtower 1969 Sep 1 p.543

(Thanks JWFacts.com)

Was It Designed? (My head hurts)

Cadellin

sir82

steve2

Cadellin

Magnum

sir82

Biahi

joey jojo

Mr.Finkelstein

Simonsez

Share this