May 18th

The New “Scientific Knowledge”

Even the sea monsters draw out the breast, they give suck to their young ones: the daughter of my people is become cruel, like the ostriches in the wilderness.

(Lamentations 4:3) KJV

A new definition of “scientific knowledge” has arisen in post-Hawking mainstream science (SciPop) thanks to atheist science trolls (ASTs) scientifically illiterate science worshipers (SISWs) and SciPop devotees.

Scientific knowledge: anecdotal evidence combined with probability means it’s a reasonable assumption.

– a definition for the post-Hawking mainstream science Trekkie generation (SciPop)

So far this month we (that’s me and the Holy spirit) have considered the implications of spherogenetic systematics on dragon taxonomy. This helped us to deduce how to distinguish the soul from the spirit. We went on to see that relativity may be used to confirm our hypotheses that the soul is a gravity node and that the spirit is an invisible vapor. Now we need to pull on a few more loose ends and see what falls out. We’ll start in the hydrosphere.


We all have the same evidence. Our choice of paradigm determines what we think it’s evidence of.

Matty’s Razor

The word translated as sea monsters above is one of the Hebrew words that means dragon, תַּנִּים֙tannim. The context is Jeremiah’s lament over Jerusalem and the people of Israel who are so desperate that mothers have forsaken the natural care of their young. Even the dragons take out the breast and feed their young, cries Jeremiah, but God’s people have forgotten. Like an ostrich who lays her eggs on the ground and then walks away and leaves them. The sadness is palpable.

Wait, what? A dragon takes out the breast? Here’s an interesting twist: are we talking about a reptilian, serpentine, dragon who suckles their young? or is the word dragon being used to refer to something else?

This is one of those situations where it’s not actually necessary to know the answer. However, just for fun and given what we know, what can we deduce? We can apply some scientific techniques. It can even be an application of hypothesis 22.


Faith is believing in something that you can’t see, because of evidence.

– Faith, definition

Predictive Testable Hypothesis 22

  • IF the Holy spirit is the power of God to inspire human writers,
    • AND the physics of the universe has been encoded into scripture so that it’s
      1. obvious and
      2. invisible
  • THEN phrases or words that look like biology, chemistry, geology or physics should be treated as if they are biology, chemistry, geology or physics
    • AND the science will be congruent with the scriptural context.

SciPop is an unmitigated failure the way our current generation of “scientists” use it. Back in the day people were fairly cautious about proposing new ideas that were connected to empirical observations by ephemeral strands of wispy logic. Not so now. Ephemeral strands of wispy logic rule the day since we’re being taught by “scientists” raised on Star Trek and trained by Bill Nye. In observing how “scientists” wield information and argue it’s clear that new definition of “scientific knowledge” has been tacitly accepted: see above.

As such, “scientific knowledge” isn’t knowledge at all. It’s whatever sounds good and is plausible. If it enhances THE NARRATIVE of godless existence then peer review will sign off on it. It goes back to the Hawking Effect: if it’s plausible it’s possible; if it’s possible it happened. All you have to do to sound “scientific” is to be plausible and present some probability factors that are in your favor. Sadly the probability factors are based on having already accepted the SciPop paradigm, in which case the probability of SciPop being correct is as close to zero as you can get, since it’s a futile exercise in circular reasoning.


The reason for creation is the manifestation of sentient life with free will.

– The Reason for Creation

The Scientific Method Post Hawking

  • If it’s plausible it’s possible.
  • If it’s possible it happened.
  • It has to have happened because we exist.
  • The chances of us existing are so remotely tiny that our existence proves our hypothesis (whatever it is).

So back to our sea monster who suckles its young. The majority of times that the Bible uses a word which has been rendered dragon it’s in a couplet which makes a solid connection to the reptiles by using a word such as serpent, asp, adder or viper. As such we have a high level of probability that the word dragon is only used to refer to reptiles. This eliminates the possibility that the word dragon is referring to a sea mammal like a Manatee.

This being the case it means that there was formerly a member of the Class Reptilia which had mammary glands. There is nothing like this alive today. However, that doesn’t mean that it didn’t exist. We’ve seen that God created in a manner that was both systematic and developmental, but it was also based on the forms which previously existed.

If we start with something that is an atmospheric analog of a firmaspheric entity, for instance the Cockatrice, which became the progenitor of both reptiles and birds, could it not also have been the progenitor of a form which had mammary glands? This then went on to be the progenitor of a group of mammals.


The purpose of creation is to bring about the permanent physical separation of light from darkness, day from night, good from evil.

– The Purpose of Creation

It’s not merely an academic question. The Cockatrice is stated as laying eggs. Egg laying then is a trait which could reasonably expected to be a characteristic of anything derived from it. There’s a group of mammals which both lay eggs and suckle their young: the Monotremes. Odd combinations of characters exist. They came from somewhere.

The scientific idea that we’re all descended from a common ancestor is irrelevant, it only applies to a system of descent with modification. It’s clear that although God was systematic in his creative work, it’s not bound to the logical process of changes in DNA over successive generations. God is free from any need to base his creation on what DNA does. In God’s creative work, DNA lags the phenotypic expression of creativity. As such, the group which we call mammals isn’t monophyletic, it’s polyphyletic. Creatures with mammalian characteristics have been derived from several progenitors.

Clearly the mammals have an origin in both hydrospheric and atmospheric reptiles: such as the cockatrice leading to the Monotremes. Whales have their own origin, which gives rise to the other marine and aquatic mammals. Bats are derived from atmospheric reptiles, which give an origin of the rodents.


Salvation

  1. Call upon the name of Jesus Christ,
    • believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead,
  2. confess your sin.

Read through the Bible in a year

Reading planMay 18
LinearJob 20-22
ChronologicalPsalms 26, 40, 58, 61-62, 64
– Read 3 chapters every day and 5 chapters on Sundays

We need your financial help but Mattymatica isn’t a religious organization, charity or new age cult.

If you need to belong somewhere, find a local church. If you’d like to help, please consider donating to our Church.

Donate

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: