Pages

Sunday, 14 August 2011

Behemoth unveiled

There's nothing like a good science story, and that notable science journal, The Philadelphia Trumpet, seems to have a scoop in its latest issue.

Esteemed science writer Robert Morley has uncovered the identity of the Job 40 behemoth!

Forget whatever you might have heard about such candidates as dinosaurs, crocs, elephants and modern rhinos; the behemoth was a baluchitherium.

Masterful logic leads to this conclusion, and only Mr Morley's article could do full justice to the case he makes.  I know I feel much edified by this information, having been long tormented by the mystery. 

According to Robert Morley, baluchitherium was wandering around the post-Edenic world, and was thus contemporary with humankind.  Job 40:19 however "implies that it was too big for people living in Job's day to kill."

Wielding scientific methodology with razor-sharp acumen, Morley asks the question that dominates the minds of seasoned paleontologists everywhere - "But why would God have created such an impressive animal?"  You know, of course, that he will provide his own erudite response...
If you were alone next to an angry African elephant, surely you would feel quite small and helpless.  How much punier and more terrified would you feel, though,  if a behemoth were charging you?  Would you not be inclined to seek God for protection?  Would you not hurriedly repent of any wrongs?
The profundity is breathtaking!  Yes, of course.  Rather than running like the clappers, any normal person would certainly fall on their knees in front of the charging behemoth and beseech the Eternal for forgiveness and divine intervention (hopefully the list of repentable items wouldn't be too long given the circumstances!)

My only question would be exactly how Adam, Job and other Old Testament worthies could have encountered this beast given that, while it certainly lived on our side of the Cretaceous extinction (something that our meticulous prehistory scholar takes pains to point out) the last baluchitherium is still supposed to have passed over into extinction more than twenty million years ago.

But that's small potatoes given the huge credibility of The Philadelphia Trumpet (and clearly this article was thoroughly peer reviewed prior to publication), so we can only but wait for lesser journals, such as Scientific American and New Scientist, to catch up with Mr Morley's cutting-edge analysis. 

14 comments:

  1. It's ironic that Dr. Stanley Schmidt observed in an editorial in Analogthe the Philadelphia Church of God is disturbing -- the only Armstrongist Church of God to be mentioned by him -- and he certainly painted the PCG in less than flattering terms, but that's just scientists are, you know.

    Thank you for this little bit of delusional Science Fiction Fantasy, but still, it lacks a solid plot line. Analog and Dr. Stanley Schmidt would never accept this for publication. It doesn't have credible speculative science to back it up and the characters are not well developed enough to hold readers' interest.

    So if Robert Morley wants to be published in any periodical that isn't rubbish, he needs to go and check out the writer's guide on the Analog website. The good news is that they now accept electronic submissions. Be sure to consult the guide first, though.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The COGs and most fundys are grossly ingnorant of the mechanisms of evolution or even its possibility.

    Personally I find our prehistory absolutely fascinating and it is what it is. Recently in Patagonia some farmers found a row of "Leg bones" the size of 55 gallon drums. Turned out to be vertabrae/ Seems the beast was 160 feet long..ha.

    When they moved to opposite side of the ark together, it seems it tipped over with the loss of all souls
    :)

    M.T. Cranium

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is not a recent contrivance. There was an article published by the WCG back in the Seventies on this topic. It is amazing how after decades this is all being regurgitated. I believe back in those days the pleistocene, eocene,miocene,etc. were all lumped together as pre-flood even though a form of Old Earth Creationism was espoused.

    -- Neo

    ReplyDelete
  4. I know I feel much edified by this information, having been long tormented by the mystery.

    I sure am glad the mystery is solved, I agonized over it for decades. I had come to the conclusion that behemoth was a mythical creature like the hydra and the unicorns. Now I can rest easy knowing that behemoth was a harmless, herbivorous animal that lived back during the time of Job, 20 million years ago.

    All we need now is to have someone explain to us what a cockatrice is. Now, there is real mystery, a flying serpent hatched from a cock's egg. And, I know they have to be real, it's in the bible.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yeah, they taught us about the baluchitherium at Embarrassing College in Bible Classes back in the 1960s.

    The shock for me is how resistant the ACOGs are to the quantum leaps the sciences have made just in the past several decades. It kind of provides some insights as to how a false religious group could exist today, but be stuck in the 11th Century.

    BB

    ReplyDelete
  6. The quantum leaps in science also include a much better understanding of human origins. The implications for Adam,Eve,Noah and Co. are on the wall. Well along with Original Sin and all NT references related to doctrine and teaching to Adam and Eve as if real in time. They weren't.

    Almost embarassing how long this took to sink in.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Eh, well, take this for whatever it's worth to you: Northern Light (the Canadian Church's answer to the Good News) ran an article in 2009, explaining (and gently encouraging Dear Reader towards) Theistic Evolution.

    Something I always sort of quasi-believed, anyway, given that the Church when I was a child, was still trying to settle out somewhere between the three theories of Young Earth Creationism, Pre-Adamic Man, and the third one, what was the third one again? Oh, yeah, that the dinosaurs and such were a result of the Fall (of Satan, since mankind didn't Fall).

    I much prefer that they have publicly come out as supporting, or at least encouraging, theistic evolution, at least a couple of years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Theistic evolution is what theists have come up with in the face of overwhelming evidence for biological evolution.

    You might notice though, that this new doctrine didn't rise up until very recently and completely out of desperation. Enlightened laity were leaving the bloodsuckers in droves and the theists have seen their future money supply drying up, not to mention their control over people lives.

    Being the profits they are, they have foreseen their own demise and have taken the drastic step of the "theistic evolution" doctrine.

    Actually, it's the beginning of the end for Xianity and there's no telling where it all might lead. It will lead to either a whole new "revelation" and reinterpretation of the wholly babble or it will continue to just fade away into the night of mankind's past superstitions.

    Pity the poor ol' young earth creationists, they have written the end to their crumbling empire, for the whole world already knows what ignorant fools they are.

    The theistic parasites would be wise to go out and find real jobs and stop making their living on other people's fears of death and retribution from a non-existent deity.

    Personally, I just hope that they all go away before the government comes up with a new tax on everyone to support these failing leaches on society. Seems like that has been done already, somewhere, where was it? Oh well, it'll come to me sooner or later...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Theistic evolution has been around for at least a couple of centuries. WCG taught "gap theory" creationism while I was at AC, but we also spent about five minutes "debunking" theistic evolution. (sporting of them!)

    I could never get behind evolution the way it was taught in biology class in high school, but also had some misgivings about the WCG's interpretation of creation. The whole issue became clearer to me when I read an amazing book by a reknowned astrophysicist a couple of years ago. "Genesis and the Big Bang". Basically, if you apply statistical analysis to the many simultaneous events which occurred in evolution, you begin to realize that it had to have been a divinely guided process. The book certainly explains this better and more authoritatively than I can, but odds of all of the events we know had to happen occurring within 12-15 billion years are overwhelmingly against.

    The earth is an oasis of order within a sea of entropy.

    BB

    ReplyDelete
  10. Byker Bob said...
    Theistic evolution has been around for at least a couple of centuries.

    No, theistic evolution came about because of Darwin's theory of evolution. Maybe you are thinking of "progressive creation"?

    Basically, if you apply statistical analysis to the many simultaneous events which occurred in evolution, you begin to realize that it had to have been a divinely guided process.

    "had to have been", huh? I wonder why that fact hasn't been written up and submitted for peer review as a viable theory of evolution...looks like it would be in all the scientific journals, seeing as how it "had to have been" that way. Might it be because evolution has already been shown to be a natural process and not a divinely guided supernatural one?

    Does the theistic evolution theory make any predictions of what will be found to support it when it is tested?

    That's what I thought. Same as "creation pseudo-science", nothing but wishful thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Corky,

    Of course, you are entitled to your opinions. However, all that is happening is that science has not fully developed soas to be able to detect God. Remember, it wasn't all that long ago that we didn't even know about such things as radar, or radio waves, let alone have the devices to transmit or detect them. Einstein believed in God, as did Sir Isaac Newton, although their beliefs may not have been totally in alignment with what is taught in many Christian churches.

    No, this is not the open and shut case which you seem to want to promote. It's still very much in play, and I expect probably will remain so through the rest of our lives (or not).

    BB

    ReplyDelete
  12. Byker Bob said...
    Corky,
    Of course, you are entitled to your opinions. However, all that is happening is that science has not fully developed soas to be able to detect God
    .

    Science is not opinion and beliefs, science is facts and evidence. But, since it is my opinion that God doesn't exist, I don't believe even science can ever detect God.

    If you are waiting for science to detect something that doesn't exist, you will be waiting forever. Non-existent things are impossible to detect and that's why evidence is necessary before declaring their existence.

    People only believe in God because they want to, it's as simple as that.

    ReplyDelete
  13. How myopic of you, Corky. It was not all that long ago that science knew nothing of bacteria.

    In many cases, science has postulated (and this is educated opinion to be subjected to test) the existence of something, based on observable behaviorioral patterns. Advances made it possible to detect and measure what was postulated. Then, it was named, then it was accepted as scientific fact.

    I believe Einstein had a greater mind than yours, and Einstein did believe in a god. People don't believe in a god because they don't want to. It's as simple as that.

    BB

    ReplyDelete
  14. Byker Bob said...

    How myopic of you, Corky. It was not all that long ago that science knew nothing of bacteria.

    It was not all that long ago that medical science was blasphemy and punishable by death. It took practically forever for Xians to admit that germs even existed. Even though they were discovered in 1660, it took 200 years before anyone would accept that they caused disease and all the public still isn't convinced. God causes diseases, don't ya know.


    I believe Einstein had a greater mind than yours, and Einstein did believe in a god
    .

    I don't know if Einstein believed in the Xian god or not and having a great mind has nothing to do with it. Einstein was a non-observant Jew, by the way. So, the chances are that he did not believe in biblegod at all.

    ReplyDelete