May 18

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” is necessary for the post-Hawking popular science (SciPop) Trekkie generation.

“Anecdotal evidence combined with probability means its a reasonable assumption.”

So far this month we have considered the implications of spherogenetic systematics on dragon taxonomy. This helped us in deducing 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 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.

The word translated as sea monsters above is one of the Hebrew words that means dragon, תַּנִּים֙ – tannim. 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.

And with it comes an interesting twist: are we really 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.

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 written in scripture so that it’s
      1. obvious and
      2. invisible,
  • THEN phrases or words that look like chemistry, physics, biology or geology should be treated as if they are chemistry, physics, biology or geology,
    • AND the science will be congruent with the scriptural context.

Popular science (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 are 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:

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

– Scientific knowledge, a definition for the post-Hawking popular science (SciPop) Trekkie generation

As such, “scientific knowledge” isn’t knowledge at all. It’s whatever sounds good and is plausible. If it enhances the godless existence narrative 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 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.

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.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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.