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.