W W W W World Wide Web Witness Inc. Home Page Contents Page for Volume What is New
Imagination, Creation and Desecration
The Australian, August 20, 2011
In The Australian Magazine, August 20, 2011, there is an effort to deal with Australian geological memorabilia, and on this occasion, with a large mountainous rock fold, called Mount Augusta. Elsewhere there is a review of a very old rain forest. We are told of millions of years with all the freakish confidence of early adolescence, and of progenitors of some kind in the plant realm for modern types with no slightest effort to show how the botanical problem with any major changes is met. It is all there. They know. Their presuppositions, predispositions and penchants come out like a megaphone on a sports day.
There is a great divide here between fact and theory, instead of what is scientifically normal, as to method: and that, it is, a great sympathy and closeness between theory WHICH COMES FROM facts, and must be wedded to them, in liaison with them, all but summoned by them, at least as to the first throw. Thus in the realm of botany, it has often been remarked by experts that efforts to call forth gradualism and its ways into this field of advent in life, if fashionable, is not fashioned by facts. It was, more generally, the famed Professor Agassiz of Harvard in his 'Methods of Study in Natural History', who, inclined towards facts noted this: "The theory of the transmutation of species is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency."
Denton, in is Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, from a later time, adds this (p. 250ff.): "We have already seen that in the case of the great morphological divisions, where empirical evidence of intermediates is lacking, there is invariably a conceptual problem in envisaging fully plausible hypothetical intermediates through which evolution could have occurred. As we shall see in this chapter precisely the same sort of conceptual problem is met in trying to reconstruct the hypothetical sequence of transitional system which led eventually to the modern cell." Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould somewhat similarly declares this - Gould and Eldredge, Palaeobiology 3(147), bold added:
"At the higher level of evolutionary transition between morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble. Smooth intermediates between Bauplâne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count)."
Small wonder is this empirical impasse the case, since as Denton notes,
|"Molecular biology has also shown that the basic design of the cell system is
essentially the same
in all living systems on earth from bacteria to animals. In all organisms the roles of DNA, mRNA and protein are identical.
The meaning of the genetic code is also virtually identical in all cells*1. The size, structure and component design
of the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells. In terms of their basic biochemical design,
therefore no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system,
nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly divers dwellers on earth."
As to plants, concerning the geological approach normal, Denton remarks this: "The story is the same for plants. Again, the first representatives of each major group appear in the record already highly specialised and highly characteristic of the group to which they belong. Like the sudden appearance of the first animal groups in the in the Cambrian rocks, the sudden appearance of the angiosperms is a persistent anomaly which has resisted all attempts at explanation since Darwin's time."
Indeed the case is as Professor Løvtrup puts it in his "Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth," with his declaration that there are "now considerable numbers of empirical facts which do not fit the theory. Therefore he asks this concerning this monstrous theory:
|"so why has it not been abandoned? "|
and indeed in review he observes this, that
|"following Darwin's example - they refuse to accept falsifying evidence."|
Gould's cry, Why in heaven's name did such diversities of design arise in such numbers so suddenly in the first place ? (Wonderful Life, p. 227), is almost like a scientist's nightmare when, after dismissing evidence feverishly in contravention of scientific method EVERY TIME, he suddenly mentions heaven in the apostrophe about the sheer horror of the facts on his model! THEY DO NOT FIT.
Well indeed, Dr Gould, might you deplore in heaven's name the departure of the ground of your contention, though improving on those who do not appear to notice it! Not well, however, is your continuance in conclusions apt for other premises, the imagination that somehow in some form of words, if not of facts, there will be the directed energy, the intellectual-type systems, the coded linguistic commands*1A, the conceptual counterpart expressible in words, the correlation of performance-obedience to conceptual command, the intricacies of meta-information to boot, directing how information is to be used in system-upon-system in linguistic complexity, even at that level, so that blindness becomes the basis, and what is not, becomes the call! Why worry about means, DNA, direction, for science is long since gone in this field, and communings within the heart, become the nebulous necessities for roving minds, cut-off by decision from the heart.
Why indeed do they have a theory to explain increase in basic design when the evidence is precisely, and at considerable scope, the opposite! Small wonder he is so moved, for it gets worse and worse.
Thus on p. 233, he mourns,
|"Instead of a narrow beginning
and a constantly expanding upward range,
multicellular life reaches its maximal scope at the start,
while later decimation leave only a few surviving designs."
|"Burgess disparity," he adds, "and later decimation is a worst-case nightmare for this hope of inevitable order."|
Making the problem greater in sudden onrushes, merely makes the magic more obvious, that would displace reality with night-mares and induce students to listen to these squalid academic dreams (cf. SMR pp. 315A ff.).
You can take as long as you like, but neither empirical evidence, nor the means for such advance testable in the lab, nor the logic behind it (cf. The gods of naturalism have no go!), nor the expected multitudes of cast-away biological failures on the way, nor the advent of tiny beginnings in cells, are to be seen by the most probing eye; while only the most amazing examples of miniaturisation, systematisation, mathematical brilliance and total organisational disposition in the underlying command structure for life, and its operational complexities are TO BE SEEN at any time support you*1. A dunce at work NEVER produces a brilliant system: it is foreign to him. Nothing at work never does anything: so you have to beg the question and put a wholly competent system for all to come, there by guess and gulp, contrary to reason, and science, which always demands a reason. ONLY what is always there, entirely self-sufficient and sufficient for all that is to come is a logical base, basis or even possibility. Take that and you take all: otherwise, it is just smuggling God in without a visa, hurried off in a waiting car to avoid the Press.
As to time, however, only in radioactivity is there even found a case for imaginations of great age for this earth, with its retained DNA intact from alleged vast ages! and the results are co-ordinate (cf. That Magnificent Rock, Ch. 7, esp. Section E *2). As noted there, Dr. Russell Humphreys, research expert in such fields, and who is writing on such topics has noted the overwhelming complex of constraints of all relevant measuring methods that DO give a date for the earth's age in terms of thousands of years, nearly all quite decisively, and has summarised some of these in his "Evidence for a Young World." His work is noted in the above Ch. 7.
Such considerations are
readily available, testable and not sheltered in ambiguity. They
would include those mentioned in The Shadow of a Mighty Rock
Ch. 2, such as the rate of disturbed
lunar rock shape-recovery, the rate of cooling of the earth, the rate of
change of its magnetic field and the nature of that field, specialised further
investigations into that field (cf. Sarfati, The Greatest Hoax on Earth pp.
208-214), salt concentration
in the ocean, the helium concentration in the atmosphere, and deep in the earth
in zircons (op.cit. 214-215), and the fact that
carbon dioxide measurements of the ordinary and radioactive isotope components,
imply a world of merely thousands of years: since the ratios are not stabilised. (See Index, Dating, SMR.)
The simple fact, as pointed out by the RATE scientists, and member, Dr Andrew Snelling in particular, has come home to roost. There is no way that any assumption about the constant rate of radioactive decay can be assumed except by invention. Invention is for novelists, not science, which has to courtesy to fact.
As to such prodigious ages, evidence now is in various mounting planes, to the contrary. For example, not only is the helium concentration in a number of deep rock beds far too high for the alleged age (and much research has gone into the elements of the question), but certain deep, Precambrian, granitic, basement rock, amid the total data available, indicate argon retention compatible with thousands and neither millions nor billions of years (Journal of Creation, 25(2),2011, Dr Russell Humphreys). The numerous dynamic realities concerning time as from Dr Steve Austin in the work on the Grand Canyon*3, and the parallels to 'millions of years' in the making rock formations, from the Mt St Helens case, worked out in days, have made the audacious claims of soporific presuppositionalism, that is untested and aggrandised initial assumption, a mere plaything utterly discredited.
Professor Lewontin of Harvard University in biological science, makes the matter clear, and this is not the first such admission from scientists, what is the philosophic point. It is a crypto-religious zeal, nothing less, which drives the mind and ensnares the soul in many of these affairs, so the canons of reason are discarded, as in parallel by so many over the ages, in fields other than science. This was noted in Lord of Longsuffering ... Ch. 2. One would almost think, in view of the words below, that this was recitiation of a creed to enable membership in some ultra-strict atheist church, worshipping whatever might occur for the purpose.
Lewontin, notable figure in the aggressive evolutionary program wrote this: ("Billions and Billions of Demons," The New York Review, p. 31, January 9, 1997 - emphasis in original, red added):
Our willingness to accept scientific claims against common sensea priori adherence to material causes
is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,
in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life,
in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories,
because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to naturalism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us
to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary,
that we are forced by our
to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations,
no matter how counter-intuitive,
no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything.
To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment
the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.
This is almost a definitional summary of mysticism, as well of materialism, neither of which have any genesis in scientific method! As to materialism, that blind endeavour to explain opposites and categorically unique aspects in terms of basic building blocks, it is at length refuted in Repent or Perish Ch. 7 as in Christ Incomparable, Lord Indomitable Ch. 2. The element of mysticism arises in this, that there is no bridge from the one, matter, to the other, mind, or the third, deciding and imaginative spirit, no interface for the making, the transfer, the innovation. It is precisely like saying that because infants and mature men are both of one sort of thing, that therefore there is merely a transmissive matter at hand: ignoring the vast empyrean of command and designation features which MAKE IT HAPPEN.
Where these lack, so does science in any attempt to unify the diverse. It is merely a dream, an idle dream, to try to make all in one somehow, despite the irrationality of the procedure, its inchoate nubilous meanders, a perversion of the logically requisite coming to what is COMPETENT to make the various discrete elements, as a matter of fact, constantly illustrated at a lower level in the daily works of mankind.
The last point of Lewontin is such a schoolboy howler, as to almost levitate the sense of humour. It is basically here maintained that it is imperative that the regularities of nature be not ruptured. This must not be, and this is the first and the greatest commandment. So here is a religion vested in nothing more or less than human will, which is not notorious for its wisdom, and needs reason at the start, to discipline here: alas a little step avoided. Moreover, it is imperative - and this is the second commandment, that it must never be that at ANY MOMENT such regularities may be disrupted. It is contrary to command, a sort of moral imperative, that regularities be disrupted, but that it should happen at ANY time, this is the force behind the furore.
One might dare to ask, WHY - is this so important that it is an irrational commandment on which the matter is based, wholly unscientific, irrational and like sugar in tea, to taste ? The answer, whatever it is, is mere caprice. In fact, one could imagine someone feeling the same about his bank-account. These electronic movements! he might say, they are fatal to any sense of accounting competence. I never know where I am. You CANNOT have that! This might be the plea and disclaimer. The answer might be: firstly, it is not really accounting incompetence, for there are accounts.
It is just that if you choose this milieu for banking, your liabilities and needs in supervising have changed. If you WORSHIP your bank account, you COULD not allow this, perhaps. It becomes a religious prioritisation. So here: if some impending disaster is about to happen, then it is always imperative that it does so and is not stopped by any non-inbuilt agency ? Why is this so ? If some oppression, as that of the Israelities in Egypt of old, is to be overcome by a divine interposition in the midst of the accumulated forces, is there some reason why the brandishing weapons of arrogant power should not by any means be turned aside, except by the armour or such things, on the ground ? Why ?
The thing is a type of worship of things natural, which bankrupts the realities which made them, since they never are found making themselves from nothing, just as the DNA is never found writing itself from the ground up, in its total systematics. In fact, you do not get your bank account, or your world from nothing, but from what being there BEFORE it has competence for the task. Otherwise, you are not flying merely in the face of REGULARITIES, but MAKING THEM UP! If then, you insist on fantasy for the whole and its basis, why complain when the rational necessities for its coming, mean it is not its own maker or master, and so is SUBJECT, like your, to extra-systematic intervention! WHO is he or she who would ORDAIN otherwise, or pre-empting God, grab the universe and put a KEEP OFF sign up for the One whose it is.
So this is not only irrational, but wilful, almost whimsical, and most certainly religious, being distinguished from Christianity in being irrational, unfounded, ungrounded and capricious. There is the ACTUAL fantasy, not merely irregular but unreasonable; and there is the reason why JUST SO stories, or what resembles them, HAVE to be made up. How else, reason voided, do you expect to get what your guessed*4 and question-begging basis cannot build and never is seen so to do!
Here, then, we see many non-scientific philosophical assumptions, some impossible logically, set not as an admission of a zealot, acknowledging the fault of putting personal ideas into a container unit, into which science is to be sovereignly suppressed, a sort of papal pronunciamento on doctrine, with a new kind of authority without ground, but as a glorying, in true religious zeal.
He freely admits how ludicrous is much in materialistically captured science, as shown in recent volumes as in SMR and Repent or Perish Ch. 7 and Christ Incomparable ... Ch. 2, where such basic concepts are shown to be logically incoherent. It has to appear so, the point he admits, because it is so, and this truncated insistence, based on nothing, a mere preference, MUST produce such ludicrous results, such just-so stories, since it abandons just use of logic and causality, and what this requires. These admittedly appalling looking results come as simple verification that such cut-down science is incompetent. that it does produce such results, when what is removed from the actual evidence, in terms of what has been called THE CULT OF THE FORBIDDEN (cf. SMR pp. 150ff., 330ff.), not only ruins scientific credibility in these forbidden cultish procedures, but cuts away truth, and leaves a desolated result, much like Hiroshima.
Commitments in science, if it is to retain any respectability, is not, as with the Romanist body, to philosophy, which gave it ludicrous results, but to the whole realm of investigation, the entire empirical read-out, and results should be the basis of hypothesis, not the appalling residue when ludicrous hypotheses are insisted on. AT ONCE, when verification fails, and the theory is contradicted, in science, that ends it. It is not necessary to live a whole life of contradiction, while bravely asserting that you will fight them on the beaches of materialism.
What is irrational is SURE to be defeated, at length, by reason, and this is the case here.
It is good that the good Lord has given us CAPACITY to look at ALL evidence, including reason within and as found in 'nature', and if possible, better yet that the results are harmonious, logically coherent and impressive when we act without prejudice, carefully testing things out. It is the Lord who in I Thessalonians 5, tells us to TEST ALL THINGS. THAT, it is true to scientific method; just as revelation is true to God, and the results of the two present no disagreement, but to prejudice which imports what is not science, into it, as if unable to contain the clear honest honour of TESTING EVERYTHING! It is because God is back of it all, that this is a pleasant task!
Let us then consider further the admissions of Lewontin.
It is however NOT only a question of just-so stories stuck to like the banners of ludicrous Marxism, simplistic ways of conceiving things without ultimate ground, logical interface or empirical fulfilment. It is if possible worse yet again. Thus in this case of organic evolution, its presuppositions are farcical, based on nothing as a heavy 'given' for 'everything' and its historical claims so aptly falsified, when it comes to fact. You have to become de-sensitised to evidence to embrace this rotting creature, this theory. If however scientific method is to have any place at all, and thus science likewise, then at each non-verification there is a ceremony which SHOULD not need to be repeated, for the interment of the theory. In SMR, pp. 140ff. SMR, a few of the more obvious grounds for mourners are noted.
It is no use trying to make up ideas about how the tyres wear, in accounting for a car, when the production of the thing is the prior question.
The production of the earth and cosmos is the prior question. Trying to make something out of nothing, or just presupposing a self-generating something sitting there, spawn of nothing rational or actual, a delimited device, filled with illimitable potential: this has nothing to do either with science or logic. If you want to reason, you HAVE to use causation and constraint, logic and grounds; otherwise, in disdaining these, you automatically invalidate by model, what you are doing, and all for which you argue, as to results. It is no use employing a broken leg in a race, even if you break it yourself in your preparations.
When you have finished finding a PERMANENT adequacy for EVERYTHING TO FOLLOW (for if nothing, nothing is the result, if something inadequate, then you don't get the results we have), as the basis, you then need to consider what has the potential to be everlasting, or the inventor of our time, to breed minds and wills and understanding and intellectual capacity, with laws which human intellects can 'discover' sitting in place long before they find these residues of the all-sufficient there before it all entity. What is self-sufficient by nature, undelimited, uncontrived, simply original, source of all despatch, eternal, acting at will to make what is not, using creative power which this world constantly attests, with a brilliance and brio it cannot match: the minimal requirement not only overcomes the deficiencies of vision, logic and empirical results as noted; it covers all with a completeness, just as the Bible, rationally found to meet the logical case, is verified in its declarations, pronouncements and descriptions, in masses of major regards.
You expect that where reason is in office: a coalescing continuum of mutually reinforcing results. Here only you get it.
When you start to examine the simplest cells, you find architectural wonder and mathematical prowess at the operational level far beyond our own, including miniaturisation PROGRAMS, and information about information determining how the available material in operation, is to operate, and thus two systems mutually involved, the one dependent entirely on the other, and both in the nature of language*1A.
When you start to examine the material side, you have to find organisation at a premium (not the IDEAS about it, but what it is, the honest subject not of speculation but observation); and when you look at the mental side, you find a logic which has laws specifiable in logical terms, themselves, the valid and the invalid, for logical results, so that LOGOS is the name of the game in the thinking as in the mutuality of thought and what it finds in the material domain.
When you start to consider spirit and the domain of imagination, extra-material considerations, breeding methods for new cosmoi and the like, you realise you are dealing not any more with mere law, logic and reason, but with what can MAKE systems of law, logic and reason, and implement them. On the other hand, once you enter the domain of the given, no longer are we in the field of making a universe, but ascertaining the nature of the one so wrought. Confusion of cause and effect, mode of institution and constitution, are such simple elements of the case that their wilful-seeming mergers are amongst the most extraordinary mental fossils to be found on this earth. Their present flurry is a type of flood, and their fascinating features are an explosion of what does not function, precisely as in actual fossils, you do NOT find this. That is but one of the divergences between the work of man and the work of God. He has no overflow of failure in His constructions, no such foozled attestations, but sound work, which meanwhile, internally enables man to be delighted with the laws which he 'discovers', long operative and installed. By contrast, the fallen philosophic, and philosophically governed fragments of man's wilfulness in pursuit of programs to exclude whatever he would rather not have, whether in infected science or elsewhere, these abound, just as do the confirmatory, verificatory, validatory constraints of logic concerning God, His creation and His modes (cf. SMR Ch. 3, Ch. 5 by contrast, Ch. 10, Secular Myth and Sacred Truth, Wake Up World... and more generally The gods of naturalism have no go!, Deity and Design ... esp. Section 8 and Light Dwells with the Lord's Christ Who Answers Riddles and where He is, Darkness Departs).
In fact, you find, or can find if you put your mind to it, that the compilation and concentration and execution and indeed creation of the structures of life, for example, that we have, as to their basic kinds, is not at all to be found by the observant eye. No such dynamic comes outside intelligence. Nature does not convey it now. It is merely the receptacle that retains the action that has ceased. Indeed, and again to the contrary, as Harvard's Gould pointed out, we find the designs diminishing over time, to the tune of some 90%. Similarly, as Cornell's Professor Sandord finds, the genome, like all designs, tends to wear out, and ours is wearing out at a stunning rate, that is a dangerous one, so that mis-matches in new batches for new generations of man are becoming a greater and greater burden. The INSTITUTION of all this design (see definition*5) stuff however, it is not to be found.
The myth of naturalistic capacity to make itself, ludicrous from the first, since what is not there makes nothing, or the begged question of the deposition-from-nowhere concept: these have power only to create a major problem. Not only are they rough-housing logic, in virtually defying causation (cf. Causes), but they are without attestation for their wanderings. We do not find things at this level at all, happening now. Evolutionary ideas may plead for time; but mismade mess-ups is not what we find in fossils to confirm this; and in any case, there has for any scientific work, to be a sharp line between what is empirical and speculative. Science can be helped by speculation, IF IT WORKS, but not if it has a mere no-show. That becomes magic and tradition breeding together, to make a cosmos of concept but not the one of creation. It does not work.
The necessity of eternal adequacy for all cannot be avoided. Nor can causation, since cause and effect, whether of law or speculative worlds, is REASONED FOR with causal logic - this causes this, and reason for that is the other, and that is because of the third ... Characteristics are put down as cause of the conduct to follow.
Reason-free confabulation and fable are mutually inclusive.
No, it is time reality stirred in the minds of the imaginative speakers of their presuppositional models of unreason, and the unempirical transcripts of assumption, and that vague generalisations about dates, in the face of overwhelming contrary data, at least began to become scientific. ONLY what meets ALL observable criteria is to be considered. WHERE it is to be found is as always a matter of reason and verification, all being subject to logical validation. The vast age dates do not do this. Modesty and scientific method alike need to come in. For my own part, I do not know of any empirical data which do not conform to the thousands of years ideas; while the contrary is overwhelming. I logically COULD not believe in the naturalistic hypotheses, or find empirical fortification for them if I did.
However, all I am seeking here, is an omission of the generalisations which have no generic basis, and the presuppositions which are not declared to be assumed.
For my own part, while there is an interesting and productive method of having presuppositional analysis and comparison, as Lisle does*6, and many others do, I do not use this. I start with necessity and end with it (cf. Serenity not Serendipity ... Ch. 6, ). This is in SMR. As from the first, there is the thought of the Christian Apologetics orchestra, many instruments, one result!
Meanwhile, so long as justification is found not in pseudo-papal authorities speaking, in the secular or other realms*7, but in data and logic, it is a a vital improvement - though it is one I do not find in the meretricious counter-causal expositions that create all but creation, and find all but confirmation for their just-so nostrums. When it comes to scientific method, I move by logic and evidence to God, to His speech, to the Bible, to its testing logically and empirically, as it enjoins with the blessed assurance of One who KNOWS the truth and IS it (Isaiah 41, 43, 48, I Thessalonians 5),and thence to any implications in any given area from it, and thence to the setting of these next to the empirical, and duly finding of harmonious peace on all sides, continue as people have done for generations*8.
What is that ? Believing the Bible, doing so BY FAITH and confirming it through reason, and accepting science when it keeps to its domain, the empirically attested, rationally coherent and the speculatively avoided! Thus only what is imagined and FOUND incontrovertibly, is accepted with the empirical. ALWAYS rhe empirical must be MET! Always logic must be consistent. ALWAYS the source must be sought and applied; and when it all fits, then logic and law, imagination and application, the empirical and the implied mixing, you are moving with due prudence and principle.
Instead therefore of creating invalidities, irrationalities, myths instead of sacred truth, roving imaginations and philosophic spectacles, founded on the unbounded, sovereign imagination, it is better to dwell on the creation of God, and the data concerning it both in revelation and that ultimate harmony with it, the actual facts, shorn, though this may make them rather cold, of the vermin of incoherent imagination.
See for example Waiting for Wonder Appendix. Wake Up World! Your Creator is Coming Ch. 6.
See Jesus Christ, Defaced, Unfazed: Barrister of Bliss ... Ch. 4.
From one of the investigations found there, this comment is made:
*3 Austin's well-researched and personally investigative book, Grand Canyon, monument to catastrophe, shows cases where the geological structures not only differ from the application of geological, uniformitarian theories of formation, but sometimes contradict or even reverse expectations, as to what came first in layers of deposition. Others, like him, have shown the unreliability of dating methods, because of their assumptions, including the isochron method, not only because of their large discordances between the resultant ages derived from each other, but through failure to fulfil expectations testable in other, physical ways.
The variability of decay rates of radioactive materials is always just one of the available assumptions which does not meet available data as shown in TMR Ch. 7, while theories about initial states and origins of rocks is another. NOTHING can be considered secure which contradicts its specifications, that is, has non-fulfilments, or contradiction of its predictions. Where the error is to be found becomes interesting; but until the matter is corrected, no standing can be given to such methods, and this the more, since in this case they contradict a whole array of highly contrary methods of measurement of age.
Further, anti-catastrophic approaches, that is gradualistic ones supported unevidentially, as if by hypnosis, have often been shown as a fixed idea, despite contrary evidence such as seen at Mt St Helens; though this particular prejudice is now being reduced in its scope of infection (cf. the extensive data and assemblage of evidence from Rock Solid Answers - Oard and Reed, with Oard's The Missoula Flood and Controversy and the Genesis Flood). Direct evidence for decay-rate variation has been shown to an increasing extent by the co-operative group of RATE scientists as seen in Dr Don de Young's work, Thousands Not Billions, and their own publicationsg.
What, why, in what measure, in what state, with changes at what rate and in what ways have always been unknowns scientifically, the history of dating methods since Lord Kelvin, for example, being not least a history of changing assumptions, and varying presumptions. When you use your model to generate 'evidence', clearly you are merely a juggler, not a scientist in method.
*4 See on scientific method and its grounds for dignity in:
SCIENTIFIC METHOD, SATANIC METHOD
AND THE MODEL OF SALVATION.
The biggest guess is NOTHING as source; for if not, it is something, and this must be adequate for the results in matter, mind and spirit, with their laws, liberties, mutually dependent correlations, symbol-action comprehensions of input and the like. The other trouble at once is that nothing is so unproductive, in time (which in the case of nothing of course, is not there) or without it. If this does not cheer the anti-God heart, then you can always just rubbish science altogether, and merely import whatever you need from nowhere and not acknowledge it.
As in a tantrum, this may feel satisfying; but it does nothing logically but beg the question, in parts or at once. What is necessary is not the imaginary, non-interfaced interactions of elements of the case, but the elements themselves and the case itself, with the brilliance of potential, and the input of the starkly diversified functional features of spirit and matter. Trying to generate these puts stress on nothing, or on the secret import of the somethings to be antecedent, which must have the potential, though they are never seen, or found, or of course, visible in such actions. You need not only to import the elements, but the systems and the laws and the constitutive procedures, as in DNA, with their highly diversified editorial keep-safe procedures, and find odd bits to stop this and make it work new things, writing commands without intelligence, the rational without reason and the brilliant without mind, so that the results will and must dismiss all causality, making the definably limited into something else of another kind and functional mode of operation, in ways never found, developed or even discernible in discard.
It may be fun, but it is merely bringing in what you need to get what you want, not acknowledging that, and then fiddling up the bits you import till you can imagine, though never produce, how IF you got them free, you could somehow MAKE them do things other than what they are actually ever found to be doing, and this for no reason. However if you were really keen, you could invent a new universe when you do not even HAVE to have reason or cause or sufficiency in basis for demonstrably apt, and empirically found results.
This would be quite an affair, but of naturally it would have precisely nothing to do with our universe (cf. SMR Ch. 3), which is a pity, for it is being used as if REAL for this very one, which constantly mocks it with just wry humour. What does it say ? It is this: what is this that you have but just-so stories, imaginations contrary to reason, observation and results; and why not write one more sci-fi about it, instead of forcing such battle-weary logical blither on students, or even on your own mind!
This however is a disease, a
pandemic, which as biblically predicted is rampaging in this earth, destroying
the concept of creation, substituting idolatry of creation, just as has
happened, a mental malady and spiritual decline (Romans 1:17ff.), just as the
DNA itself, the greatest materially expressed prodigy of design on earth, as
constrained into brilliance in kind, is now deteriorating as is the nature of
such designs (II Timothy 4, II Peter 3 cf. ). The mental side of it, it is
not just an individual matter, but a human-default lapse. The broken reality
grinds in the mind, and so the results can never meet facts, or find adequate
support from them. Things simply do not happen that way: but do what they are
good at, and you have to find what made them in the first place if you want to
find something utterly different, as in the case of any other artist. The things
do not merge.
See Dig Deeper 2 (unity of creation, history, past, present and future before God, and survey of design as scientifically required, with reference to the definition of design, on which also see Ch. 8 op. cit.).
See Dr Jason Lisle, The Ultimate Proof of
See The Holocaust of Morality ....Ch. 5.
On the relationship of reason, validation, verification, faith and the empirical, see The Bright Light and the Uncomprehending Darkness Ch. 7.