They've Found a Spiral Galaxy Too Early Which Confirms My Previous Blog

 I wrote a blog previously about how historical science fails logical rules because it is not really scientific. 

They have now found an 11 billion year old spiral galaxy, where they argued it was impossible to form after about 6 billion years.

If you think a man was born in 2001 but proof is found that in 1997 he was a three and a half foot boy you don’t say, “oh we thought that impossible, but boys must be able to grow in the womb for a number of years before they are born”.

In the same way when you find a spiralled bar galaxy billions of years before it should exist when your theory says it is impossible, you don’t reason that somehow it’s possible because you are supposed to infer the theory is wrong. (but this is what the scientists are doing, they're trying to somehow save their big bang theory when it is clearly false)

If it wasn’t bad enough finding galaxies in the dark ages we now find this galaxy!

Objection; “what are you saying, that science should be dogmatic and shouldn’t change when things are found to be wrong?”

No, I am saying that is fine when it comes to things that really should be explained scientifically. But when you look at things like that they seldom have to change because true science doesn't have a history of being constantly wrong like with historical science.

You see, with operational science, this is strong science because it refers to the universe’s operation. We don’t expect to find a mechanical engineer inside of an engine, we expect to explain the operation of the engine without the engineer. 

But when it comes to the creation of the engine, the origins of things, this reasoning no longer works because it isn’t now the operation of things we are dealing with but their creation of which we have no scientific access to.

The reason why “science” like the big bang, macro evolution and abiogenesis always turn up contradicting evidence rather than what was predicted, is because they are not dealing with the operation of the universe but the creation/beginning of the things in the universe.

THAT IS WHY HISTORICAL “science” APPEARS SO WEAK, BUT OPERATIONAL SCIENCE STRONG by stark contrast.

There is a logical lesson here; science doesn’t work when you employ this philosophy of methodological naturalism as extending beyond what is operationally deduced by going into areas of the unknown. (origins) 

Methodological naturalism works with operational science because we don’t expect anything other than a natural explanation whether God is there or is not there like we don't expect to find an engineer inside the engine. However when it comes to the creation of things technically you don’t have that same premise. The premise that only methodological naturalism is required is PROVABLE with operational science, but it isn’t provable with historical science and is it a coincidence that historical science doesn’t yield the same results?

It’s no coincidence! It is clear that real science should be operational science. Philosophical/historical science, is a logically WEAK and invalid endeavour. 

No Evidence Of God

 To say there is no evidence of God/a designer, I consider a false assertion.

It may be true that science rejects design BUT logical rules still allow people to ask what they would expect as evidence of a designer and if we then find that evidence then to say there is no evidence is a lie and is false even if science rejects that evidence because according to the law of the excluded middle we have either found what we expected to find or we haven't. 

What is intelligence and can it be found? Yes, in the form of the features you find in any sophisticated design were you find correct placement of parts, specified complexity, correct materials, contingency planning, solutions to innate problems etc, etc...

what does it mean that we only collectively find these features in intelligently designed things? That those features OBVIOUSLY represent the intelligence put into them.

So would we EXPECT those features to be found in things we argue had great intelligence put into them? (we argue life is designed)

Obviously. In fact we cannot even argue that we wouldn't expect it. 

And we do find it.

You may object, "evolution would say they are appearance of design".

Counter-objection; can you find one thing in existence that is not designed that had all of the features of intelligence put into it? No, because our induction is that according to statistical probability 1 out of 1 things with all of the usual features of ID in them were IDed.  (an overwhelmingly insuperable reason to believe it is NOT evolution)

However I ACKNOWLEDGE that it is a logical possibility that if evolution designed life the intelligence would have to be an appearance. However technical this objection, however weak, I accept you can desperately argue it.

Why weak? Because evolution would only be responsible for SOME of the design. You then have to argue the rest of the intelligence we find in the replicating DNA code and all of the cellular machinery and so forth, came from abiogenesis. 

BUT, it doesn't matter. The issue is whether there is evidence for God designing life in the matter of finding what we would usually find from an IDed thing. We still have found what we expected to even if you put it down to evolution. That is satisfying for theists because we simply have found what we expected to find even if every atheist wing-bag on earth continually repeats the false factoid that there is no evidence for God. 

Think about it, there are no logical rules that would allow you to argue that no matter what evidence you find it cannot be what you would expect to find if something is IDed. That's irrational, for we know certain things FOLLOW if something is IDed. Whether you like it or not we have found the expected evidence that God designed life and biomimetics is the cherry on the cake. (the engineering field of science that proves life's design is smarter than ours because we have to steal the ideas in nature because they're better than ours.)