“There are those who reason well, but they are greatly outnumbered by those who reason badly.”
“Mathematics is the alphabet with which God has written the Universe.”
“Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe.” All attributed to Galileo Galilei
Popular fiction to the contrary, both the ancient Greeks and Romans were excellent engineers and experimental researchers. What they lacked was a system to tie everything together. Until Isaac Newton, every branch of learning had not only their own method of learning, but their own set of standards.
This changed with Isaac Newton. He took the learning, the methods, the mathematics of those who went before him and developed what we know today as the scientific method.
“Newton singlehandedly contributed more to the development of science than any other individual in history. He surpassed all the gains brought about by the great scientific minds of antiquity, producing a scheme of the universe which was more consistent, elegant, and intuitive than any proposed before. Newton stated explicit principles of scientific methods which applied universally to all branches of science. This was in sharp contradistinction to the earlier methodologies of Aristotle and Aquinas, which had outlined separate methods for different disciplines. “© 1996-2007 Eric W. Weisstein
Newton built on the foundations laid by Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Hus, and Savonarola, as well as the ancients. But Newton had a far more important foundation. “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
“This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God (Greek), or Universal Ruler; for God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants. The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal, the Eternal of Israel, the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: these are titles which have no respect to servants. The word God usually signifies Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God: a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God. And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity and infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures forever, and is everywhere present; and, by existing always and everywhere, he constitutes duration and space. Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is everywhere, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and nowhere.”
(Scholium [postscript] at the end of Sir Isaac Newton’s Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, Translated by Andrew Motte, Revised by Florian Cajore)
These statements clearly show that Isaac Newton certainly believed that the evidence demonstrated more than just Intelligent Design, but the need of a personal God to not only create but also superintend, watch over, direct His creation.
But Newton does not stop with a loving, caring God watching over His creation. He states that the material universe could not exist apart from Him. In the same work Newton continued with the following.
“We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final causes; we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. But, by way of allegory, God is said to see, to speak, to laugh, to love, to hate, to desire, to give, to receive, to rejoice, to be angry, to fight, to frame, to work, to build; for all our notions of God are taken from the ways of mankind by a certain similitude, which, though not perfect, has some likeness, however.”
The order of a scientific method of observation, categorization and understanding the material universe requires, to use Newton’s words, “the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords.” Newton very clearly understood what he said and he understood that the opposite was not possible. “Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could produce no variety of things.” More than 150 years before The Origin of Species, Newton showed that the very foundations of evolution were not scientific, because science is based on God. “All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing.”
Tag Archives: science
“Trust me. I’m a Scientist.”
Hubby is working on the Conflict of the Ages Part 3: “They Deliberately Forgot” –The Flood and the Ice Age. Yes, this series has pretty cumbersome titles, doesn’t it? The first part is based on 2 Peter 3:5, where Peter nails the whole secularist amnesia and its resulting erroneous dogma.
In this work-in-progress, he quotes from a site called Talk Origins, where Secularists prepare their minions to go forth and do battle with nasty Creationists. That’s not the way they put it, of course. They claim to be objective educators simply trying to teach truth and prevent lies from invading impressionable minds. Uniformitarians are the truth-tellers, of course, and Creationists are the liars.
In our book, we are talking about science and history related to the flood and the ice age. You don’t really need to understand radiohalos to get the point of this blog post, but here’s a brief explanation. They are tiny colored spherical shells in rocks caused by alpha particle decay of radioactive isotopes, usually uranium, found primarily in biotite crystals within pieces of granite. These can be evidence of the age of the sample.
What you do need to understand is that the article on the Talk Origins site about radiohalos: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html:
is classic secularist strategy. Here are the steps in their process of discrediting Creation Science.
#1 Assert millions of years
“Plutonic rocks on the other hand cool very slowly, on the order of a million years or more for some deeply buried and insulated magmas.”
Very near the beginning is the usual dogmatic assertion quoted above. Plutonic Volcanic rocks are millions of years old, because they form deep in the earth and that’s how long it must take them to harden. No evidence. No proof. Just the minions gathering around with open mouths and adoring eyes at this “truth” that needs no proof.
Circular reasoning is essential for obfuscation
“Age dating” [is]“never fully successful as…observed damage halo was also a function of…the crystalline structure of the host mineral.”
Obfuscation means making clear stuff murky. The article claims that you can’t use radiohalos to date rock samples because the results also depend on the age of the “host mineral”, which uniformitarians “know” is millions of years. In other words, see point one above. And all the minions said, “ooohh.”
Invent an adversary
The Talk Origins Radiohalos article mentions “Gentry’s Thesis” as if this scientist were the only originator and exclusive propagator of the theory they want to discredit. The work they seek to refute has been a scientific position since at least 1918 and represents the work of many scientists past and present. There is no “Gentry Thesis”, but this artificial man and this misrepresented theory are easy to attack and discredit. They also mention the “Polonium Halo Hypothesis”, which is also a fake construct, because Polonium radiohalo information is not a theory. It is a tested and long-proven fact. This all reminds me of the “Two Legs Bad, Four Legs Good” mantra of the sheep in George Orwell’s Animal Farm.
Tell people you’ve put a lot of work into this … whatever it is
“… Decades of intensive field and laboratory investigations by thousands of geologists.”
Talk Origins asserts that because lots of people who worked a long time on lots of rocks disagree with that imaginary single man mentioned above, he can’t possibly be right.
Trust me, I’m a scientist, and I’m ‘way smarter than you or that guy you’ve been listening to
The Talk Origins article contains the assertion that Gentry was never properly qualified to speak on radiohalos in rock samples because he wasn’t a geologist, he was a physicist. How a physicist is not qualified to talk about radiohalos is anybody’s guess. But this secularist “teaching moment” is essential to convince the uninitiated that the high priest is the only one qualified to dispel the ignorance of the masses on their religious beliefs. Any creationist can be immediately dismissed as a reliable source if the secularist asserts he doesn’t have the proper qualifications to speak on the subject they want to discredit him about..
Hubby got into a fb message conversation with a person who adopted the position that he had never worked in the sciences and was therefore not qualified to speak in the discussion groups where he participates. The truth is that he has postgraduate coursework, has taught science, and is perfectly qualified. But his comments are dismissed because he isn’t a member of the secularist high priesthood. “Go away, little man. I’ve tried to be nice, but you won’t listen. Your words are of no importance.” Well, no, he’s not going away. The minions need to hear the truth with proof.
“So what evidence would you accept to prove that the Earth is millions of years old?” an atheist asked me on Christmas day. It is not possible to have a reasoned, intelligent discussion with someone whose opinions (beliefs) are not based on evidence and facts. The question changes facts and evidence into a matter of opinion. That is the very foundation of AntiScience. That question ended my participation in that discussion.
The simple statement, “That is a green fence,” is a statement of fact. It may or may not be true. It can be tested and either proven or disproven. Between friends, the statement “That is a green fence” should be enough.
But scientifically, the statement has three parts which need to be defined. 1) What is “that?” Down the street? Are you sitting on it? 2) What is green? Saturation value of 255 while red and blue each have a saturation value of 0? 3) What is a fence? Are you referring to a wall, a pile of stone, a traditional wooden fence?
Seldom, if ever, do we need to be so precise in everyday discussions. Even highly technical scientific discussions are filled with assumptions, such as that the person reading this knows that H is hydrogen and He is helium.
But to replace evidence with opinion is AntiScience. In everyday life we express opinions and that is part of life. “I like that green fence.” “I believe that green is an ugly color.” Both of these are opinions which might start lengthy discussions, but they are not science. Neither are they my opinions. I just used them as examples of opinions.
In the discussion group, I brought up the fact of lunar recession, which is detailed in another blog post as proof for a young Earth. The moon is receding from the earth at a rate of 1.5-2 inches per year (the measurements have been taken repeatedly and there is a very slight disagreement as to the exact amount of recession).
Instead of dealing with evidence, I was attacked and mocked for not believing as they do. Links to articles “debunking” what I “believe” were quickly posted that had nothing to do with my article or my position.
The self-righteous hypocrites who instantly jump to condemn as “ignorant” and “uninformed” anyone who dares to publish evidence and facts which disprove their establishment of religion are AntiScience. Over twenty years ago I saw a St. Louis, MO news piece, carried on both the electronic and print medias. A man was arrested in a park in St. Louis in a drug case. The picture and videos showed a slovenly, haggard man with long, unkempt hair and needle marks. He was a graduate student at Arizona State University. He agreed with the established religion so he could be repeatedly referred to as a “scientist.”
At the same time, well dressed, articulate men with earned PhDs and no criminal records who present evidence against the established religion in this country are vilified by the same media.
Believers in the establishment of religion in this country, Secular Humanism, are intolerant of anyone who presents evidence which contradicts their deeply-held, emotional beliefs.
Illustration From A TOM CORBETT Space Cadet Adventure THE SPACE PIONEERS By CAREY ROCKWELL, 1953, illustrations by LOUIS GLANZMAN. Project Gutenberg Transcriber”s note: Extensive research did not uncover any evidence that the copyright on this publication was renewed.
A number of more modern scientists strive to maintain the integrity of their profession in the face of much dishonesty on the part of committed Secular Humanists. University of California Professor of Psychology Stanley Sue believed that it was essential to avoid the common secularist redefining of the word “theory” into “fact,” as Richard Dawkins frequently does when speaking of Evolution. Sue instead demanded that the bias so evident in secularist dogma be avoided.
“Scientific skepticism is considered good. … Under this principle, one must question, doubt, or suspend judgment until sufficient information is available. Skeptics demand that evidence and proof be offered before conclusions can be drawn. […] One must thoughtfully gather evidence and be persuaded by the evidence rather than by prejudice, bias, or uncritical thinking.”
Richard Feynman, 20th century physicist, apparently had no use for skewed data and the common practice of simply burying contradictions to theories being researched. He cautioned scientists to be thoroughly honest in their work by including supporting and contrary evidence and anything discovered along the way that might advance knowledge.
“If you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it; … You must do the best you can — if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong — to explain it. … Those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; …The idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.”
When scientists ignore this commitment to honesty, they fall into the same trap that Isaac Asimov did. Claiming to speak as a scientist, he rightly invoked the word “inspired” to express his baseless but religiously held beliefs. “We can make inspired guesses, but we don’t know for certain what physical and chemical properties of the planet’s crust, its ocean, and its atmosphere made it so conducive to such a sudden appearance of life…” Although he appears to be humbly admitting science’s limitations, Asimov is in fact dishonestly claiming that when a scientist guesses, it is like ordinary people stating facts. Notice that instead of allowing for the possibility of a creative act by God, he assures us that all that happened was a “sudden appearance” of life made possible by natural conditions.
In the novel Pride and Prejudice, an unscrupulous man plays on social prejudices to advance his own position just as many secularists advance their “scientific” theories. He pretends humility while providing supposed evidence for theories people already hold. Jane Austin said, “Nothing is more deceitful … than the appearance of humility. It is often only carelessness of opinion, and sometimes an indirect boast.” Those who misuse science frequently advance the “scientist’s” own reputation without presenting sound science or true knowledge. “Carelessness of opinion” is almost a watchword for those who feel free to advance any belief and call it science, and frequently they receive applause when they should be greeted with healthy skepticism.
Today the observations and measurements of the physical world must support the established religion of Secular Humanism. “Carelessness of opinion” expressed by their celebrity pseudo-scientists along with their “inspired guesses” must be given as much weight as facts. Its adherents of course, deny this. They loudly denounce the corruption of the Church-State union and insist they are pure of such entanglements.
John W. Draper, 19th century American physician and photochemist, claimed that “Science has never sought to ally herself with civil power. She has never subjected anyone to mental torment, physical torment, least of all death, for the purpose of promoting her ideas.” While asserting that theists are invariably corrupt and violent, he deflects attention from the hand-in-glove relationship of secularists with the courts resulting in the bombarding of schools and government institutions with lawsuits demanding removal of any hint of religious mention in the name of “separation of church and state.”
Our book Antidisestablishmentarianism expands the following points in detail. Antidisestablishmentarianism has thousands of footnotes and over thirty pages of Bibliography references. These brief explanations will help those indoctrinated in the religion of Secular Humanism to begin to understand what America’s founding fathers knew when they wrote the Constitution.
The words belief, trust and faith are legal terms which form the foundation of true science. Belief means examination of the evidence and deciding by an act of the will to choose what is true. Belief is similar to the word credible. Belief can be misplaced. Faith is the active part of belief. Trust is the passive part of belief. Belief is the foundation of true science. The Wright brothers believed men could fly. With that faith they built an airplane in Ohio and shipped it by rail to North Carolina. They trusted in their beliefs by riding in the airborne airplane. This is the foundation of true science and the historic use of the words belief, trust and faith found in the Bible and used by America’s founding fathers. No basic law of physics contradicts anything in the Bible.
Secular Humanism is a leap of faith devoid of scientific facts. Like all religions, no two believers believe exactly the same way. In Chapter Six of Antidisestablishmentarianism we list 18 dogmas of Secular Humanism. Some of the most important points held by the vast majority of Secular Humanists are: Secular Humanism is a religion based on feeling and emotion, not reason. Secular Humanists do not believe in anything non-material. Secular Humanists deny God, angels, sin, Satan and demons. They believe that the goal of mankind is personal fulfillment, (as they define it) and collective evolution. Like everything else, children are the property of the state. Unity means the eradication of opposition. In 1957 Secular Humanists sued and won tax exemption as a religion. Secular Humanism is recognized by the United States Supreme Court as religion, with evolution as a central tenant of that religion. The core of evolution is the concept of “deep time” on earth.
Chapter 14 of Antidisestablishmentarianism is a twenty-seven-point list of scientific facts which scientifically prove that the belief in deep time on earth is a myth. A modified version of Chapter 14 is on the website. These four points sum up the major arguments. First, the moon is receding from the earth at a rate of approximately 1.5 inches per year. The moon’s orbit is unstable. Since an orbiting satellite must increase speed the closer the satellite is to the object it is orbiting, at some point closer to the earth the moon’s orbit would have been stable. A catastrophic event more powerful than all the nuclear weapons on earth was needed to change the moon’s orbit.
Second, near the top of the Himalayan mountain is a “yellow band,” a layer of intact fossilized ammonites, ancient marine creatures similar to a modern nautilus. Because they are mostly intact, they had to be put in place while their surroundings were in a plastic state (mud). Either there was tens of thousands of times more water on earth than there is now, or far more likely, the entire Himalayan mountain chain, including Mount Everest, was catastrophically upthrust. That is, with approximately the same amount of water that the earth has now, the Himalayan mountain chain went from layers under the ocean to its present location in a matter of minutes.
Third, Lake Titicaca is 12,500 feet high on the border of Bolivia and Peru. It is classified as brackish, which means that it has a salt content, though it is not salty enough to be classified as seawater. Only fresh water feeds the lake now. It has living sea horses, which indicate that Lake Titicaca was once connected to the ocean. There is an ancient shoreline which is much higher at one end of the lake than the other. At some point in the past Lake Titicaca was severely slanted compared to the modern lake. There is a large (660 feet long) building underwater with a road leading to it and steps leading down to unexplored depths.
Tiahuanaco is a city twelve miles south and 800 feet higher than the current lake. Tiahuanaco was a port city with a harbor for ships much larger than the current lake ships. They were probably ocean-going vessels. Though corn will not germinate above 11,500 feet, there are terraced cornfields on the shores of Lake Titicaca going up to 17,500 feet. The reasonable, scientific conclusion is that the moon’s orbit, the Himalayan yellow band and Lake Titicaca were all a result of a massive catastrophe which happened since civilized men were building cities.
Fourth, the according to Secular Humanists the only really reliable dating method is radiometric dating. For radiometric dating to be accurate, the earth could never have passed through a thermonuclear event. It is also impossible to know the original condition of the radiometric samples being tested. All the radiometric sample tells us is the ratio of radioactive isotope to stable isotope. The usual published date is nothing more than the oldest possible date of a range of dates. Zircons are the standard Secular Humanists use for establishing a 4 billion plus age for the earth, using the uranium to lead dating method. The exact same zircon sample, however, using the helium diffusion rate gives a date of only 6,000 years ± 2,000 years.
Only Secular Humanists can even conceive of the idea that the phrase “establishment of religion” in the first amendment of the US Constitution is vague and without meaning. The opening to the Magna Carta clearly states “that the English Church is to be free and to have all its rights fully and its liberties entirely.” The Magna Carta opens with this clear statement that the English Church was to be completely free of the English Crown. For hundreds of years the Magna Carta was signed over and over again by various monarchs, always with same words in the first point. The English Church was the center of worship, the dispenser of alms to the poor with preaching friars and monasteries and the overseer of education with the great Universities of Oxford and Cambridge.
Henry VIII decided to change the meaning of the Magna Carta to mean free of foreign control, meaning the Church of Rome. This seizure of doctrinal teaching from the pulpit, almsgiving (remember John Bunyan’s imprisonment) and education by the crown was the sharpest goad to force Englishmen to leave England for the New World. At the same time on the European Continent, the Peace of Augsburg (1555) and the Peace of Westphalia (1648) clearly spelled out what an Establishment of Religion was and what was and what was not allowed. As in England, taxes supported the established churches which were responsible for providing for the poor, education and public preaching. Since the heresy trials of Charles Augustus Briggs in the 1890s, American schools, poorhouses and other types of welfare have only had to claim that they were not religious (secular) to receive tax money and favorable laws. These welfare and educational payments have been given with strict secular humanist strings attached. Through these judicial rulings, federal laws and federal funds, Secular Humanism is now an establishment of religion in every sense America’s founding fathers meant by the phrase “establishment of religion.”
While the first Humanist Manifesto openly used the term “religion” to describe their beliefs, modern Secular Humanists have discovered that lying about their religious beliefs gives them enormous political power. By falsely claiming that they are not a religion, they can appoint bureaucrats, collect taxes, and pass laws against, fine and even imprison those who oppose them. Any other form of religion is their enemy and must be quashed. The second and especially the third installments of the Humanist Manifestos are filled with newspeak straight out of Brave New World.
To a Secular Humanist, Science is “deep time.” The exact amount of time is unimportant. Secular Humanists are dogmatic that “science” allows for evolution. Their religion requires vast amounts of time uninterrupted by global catastrophes to account for evolutionary development. Overwhelming evidence forces them to admit to some catastrophes. These must be shoved far enough back in time to not interfere with evolution. Secular Humanists do not mean the scientific method, unbiased experimentation and observation when they use the word “science.” These are acceptable parts of science only when they are connected with “deep time.”
When Secular Humanists are not in power, they demand unity, “sharing” and that everyone “come together” to achieve goals. When they are in power, they ignore, attack, or overwhelm any opposition and go ahead with their own plans. Anyone who refuses to put their faith and trust in “science, falsely so called” is blocked from employment, fired if they do get a job and blacklisted once they are fired. Common forms of blacklisting include failure to cooperate with others (they cannot be pushed into believing in “science”) and refusal to abide by customary standards (refusal to put their faith and trust in “science”).
Since Secular Humanists believe that children are the property of the state under the brotherhood of man, they actively support the kidnapping of children for indoctrination. Secular Humanists believe in property confiscation to force people to believe. In Communist countries, Secular Humanists put unbelievers in re-education camps and work them to death.
“Free” sex, immorality, self-indulgence, profanity (free expression) and violence against all who disagree with Secular Humanism are not only tolerated, but encouraged. Disagreement is not tolerated.
Tools used to coerce unbelievers are social (isolation, crimes committed against them are ignored), political (laws are passed and regulations written to enforce secular humanism) and economic (loss of job and confiscation of property). Widespread abuse of prescription drugs allows behavior control and masks consequences and responsibility for sin.
(from our website, http://findleyfamilyvideopublications.com)
February Book Releases: The Conflict of the Ages, Part One, Carrie’s Hired Hand and Diary of a Christian Dog
The Conflict of the Ages Part One: The Scientific History of Origins
The Conflict of the Ages is a Multi-Part exploration of History, Science and Ancient Literature. This first installment covers the concepts of God, time, Creation, physics, cosmology, ans specifics about each day of Creation. We make comparisons with ancient sources to see where they agree with the Scriptural account. We reference classic and modern scientific views, exposing errors, preconceptions, presuppositions and falsehoods taught as fact by the mainstream scientific community. God is the first witness and the Bible the first eyewitness account of beginnings and origins. Other ancient documents contain at least some truths and parallel accounts.
Youtube video Trailer:
A Northerner married to a Southerner gets enough stares and scorn. Carrie doesn’t need more from Robert Salliger, handsome friend of her dying husband. He says Ben’s death is his fault. He swears to take care of Carrie and the children. But she goes home alone, and can’t read the letters that come. When a deaf and dumb boy arrives she is glad for the help but has no idea how much help he will be.
YouTube Trailer link
An English Knight begins a diary of his “adventure” joining Louis IX’s First Crusade. The armada to Alexandria encounters a violent storm and the knight and his companions shipwreck. He must make an impossible choice: Cut himself off from his people or face execution. His life of turmoil and terror leads him to peace, but slavery and torture block his quest to find his friend and get home to his father.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80188123/Diary-Scribd (free here)
You Tube Trailer Link