I have to say you are far more fun than a fundamental. However, when a Jehovah's Witness starts bandying around words like;
uniformatarian (sp.)
- well, let's just say that is when you have to worry. Indeed, it's not just 'apostate' quips about the 'Borg' that indicate the JW's are recognised as being uniformitarian, but the JW's themselves who pride themselves on it. Please don't try any semantic debate about the difference between 'unity' and 'uniformitarians', since if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's probably a JW.
You mention the old curmudgeion about the bumblebee being able to fly and scientists not knowing how. That one is straight out of the old pale blue '60's Evolution book.
It may well have bee-n true at the time, but at that point in the study of aerodynamics they also didn't know how frisbees flew. If the bumblebee's flight not being explained by science is a proof of god's power, the same must bee-e true of the frisbee, according to your logic.
Fortunately you will be pleased to know that the flight behaviour of both frisbees and bumblebees is now quite explainable, largely due to modern computing power. If you want though, you can count playing frisbee each month when you turn in your hours (what's the scriptual reference for that one, I can't remember).
Just as lightning was once thought to be the hand of god, we find ignorance of nature still results in a belief of the divine.
At this point I'd like to bring up the Boreans. They, when exposed to a new set of teachings, examined the scriptures thoroughly. They did not examine the New World Translation thoroughly; there was no canon of holy scriptures. They examined the texts written by learned and inspired men.
The inspiration of scientists has lead to breakthroughs in the human understanding of the Universe. It would be remiss to exclude scientific literature in examining your belief's (our old beliefs') today, as I bet you if the Boreans had had access to our 'scriptures' written by the inspired and learned today, I dare you to tell me they wouldn't use them.
As such, your repeated use of scripture to bolster your arguement is as effective as an English-speaking tourist talking to a non-English speaker in a loud voice on the assumption that something will get through.
We do nota speaka your language. Youa area talking a loada rubbish. Comprende? Sorry, but I just LOVE ad hominum, especially dealing with super-fine apostles like you.
This non-comprehension of you is not however, the result of ignorance, but the result in realising that whathever the Bible is, it is not 100% accurate inspired word of god. You seek to escape that realisation through self-delusion.
This is no doubt caused by the cognitive dissonance you are experiencing. You know, subconsciously, that the JW's are not just wrong, but fundamentally flawed. You are not strong enough yet to accept that and the changes that you will have to make to your life. You cannot stand the thought of the uncertainty letting go of your belief system would cause. It is this certainty that you were right and special and one of god's people that has kept you going through the hard times, and that same certainty is what has made giving up so damn much worthwhile. You were going to live forever. It's no wonder you are reeling with internalised shock and are intent on deluding yourself. It's easier than facing the REAL truth.
So you escape the pressure of cognitive dissonance by 'proving' to yourself how right JW's are, both here, in Society-condemned den of apostates (ah, but you're super-fine, so they don't mean you), and whenever else you can. I bet you are a massive asshole on the doors!
A good example of scientifc ignorance and self-delusion is your personal take on the water canopy. If I'm not mistaken, the current Witspeak line on this is that perhaps some vapourised water canopy existed in the thermosphere (a high atmospheric layer). Your postulation of a liquid water layer makes YOU an apostate too.
Welcome, brother.
It is also an extremely silly idea. Your logic runs thus;
That's not what I said. Once a creative act is concluded, it is not necessary for God to continue to act. If that were the case it would be necessary for God to miraculously sustain every living thing since they came into existence by the very same word of God that also caused the waters to part.
Returning to the point of scientific ignorance on your part, I would point out that, as a Jehovah's Witness you do not belive in any form of seperate 'soul' animating the bodies of creatures. It is flesh and blood.
Scientists can, on a microcellular level, explain how it all works. There is no magic. You say that if creative acts automatically continue and if this wasn't the case god would have to "miraculously sustain every living thing".
This is false. Living things continue because it is in their nature to do so. No god. No magic. No miracle.
Again, looking at your ignorance of nature;
ScientistS, for example, are not quite sure why the rings of Saturn are held in suspension above such a massive planet without collapsing Saturn-ward under the pull of gravity
This is false. Gravity is quite simple, it follows an inverse square rule. It doesn't matter how bloody big something is, it still follows the inverse square rule. A black hole is the most massive thing there is, but if you are far enough away and have a high enough angular velocity you can orbit them.
If an object is far above a planet in an orbit (i.e. it has velocity relative to the planet but not moving toward the planet), the fall of the object under gravity means that it's relative velocity to the planet carries it round the planet in an cycle dependant on orbital speed. Gavity works proportionally according to the masses of the objects involved. If you stand next to mountain it is exetring gravitational force on you, but it's so small compared to the pull of the Earth it is effectively nothing. The force you exert on the Earth and on the moutain are also, there, but effectively nothing.
As gravity is proportional to mass, Saturn being big and dust and rocks being little do not mean that Saturn will Hoover up all the dust, provided the dust is far enough away and has high enough an angular velocity. See, it is very simple.
Orbits do decay if there is a reduction in the speed of the orbiting object (in low Earth orbit you begin to experience atmospheric drag), but the rings are way above that level.
You know we know you know, you know?
Your argumentation is superficially glossy (thus you're more fun than a fundy), but it is fundamentaly facile.
All the best.
