ATP synthase motor - brilliant design by the master designer

[Burrawang]

@rsewell

@Burrawang

You may choose to believe what you have written, but if you are completely honest, you will freely admit that your claim of 7,000 BC is wholly based on a secular dating methodology that in all honesty cannot be accurately calibrated, at all, and relies on spurious assumptions to achieve that date that conflicts with the genealogies as set out in the Holy Bible.

What spurious assumptions?

Carbon dating of material in Hezekiah’s tunnel accurately agrees with the Biblical time, so if carbon dating is wrong, the Bible is wrong.

Eyewitness written historical accounts date the Egyptian pyramids prior to the flood as calculated by AiG using genealogies. Carbon dating favors the earlier historic range.

It is not I, that’s making spurious assumptions here, is it?

Clearly, the Bible isn’t wrong. What is wrong is the belief that radiometric dating dating is a reliable, accurate methodology to determine ages of samples from the distant past. Instruments are calibrated according to a very precise procedure, and in most cases those instruments provide very accurate measurements of what they are measuring, but those measurements are not ages, they do not provide a result in units of time.

The error enters the procedure when the accurate measurements are converted into a date or date range in the distant past. That is the unscientific component of the whole procedure. Making assumptions that the initial starting concentrations of parent and daughter isotopes can be reliably based upon mineral analysis is all honesty a clear situation where that analysis does not adequately demonstrate the assumptions made from them, because to much needed information is missing.
More specifically, the starting and through the mid-term to the present, the ratios of parent and daughter isotopes remains objectively unknowable.
That is an objective fact.
Simply because those ratios are in the sample in the distant past, and we can’t perform analysis in the distant past, we can only perform analysis in the present!

Sure best guesses can be made and are made, but ultimately all methodologies are fraught with potential error, and substantial error at that, simply because when attempting to determine the age of an artefact or a rock or a fossil, the analysis being performed in the present simply does not have all the necessary information knowledge required to scientifically make an accurate conclusion of a date, it will always be based upon assumptions that cannot be directly confirmed, they can only be calculated based upon assumptions that are themselves predicated upon the worldview of the researcher.

@rsewell

@Burrawang

Archaeology is a forensic science that by its very nature is not capable of anywhere near the same degree of certainty as practical operational science

You say that because archeology directly threatens your position. Archaeology includes operational science; would you suggest rather making stuff up as YEC is wont to do?

I say that simply because it is an objective fact!

Do you really believe conclusions made to determine an age or date range through< lab analysis performed on ancient Archaeological artefacts have the same degree of certainty as lab analysis of say a sample to determine what elements it contains now in the present day?

@rsewell

@Burrawang

It’s quite amazing that evolutionists actually believe the soft tissue found in real unmineralised dinosaur bones are 66+ million years old when easily repeatable straightforward laboratory experiments clearly demonstrate that the established laws of both physics and chemistry are severely violated when the soft tissue found in real unmineralised dinosaur bone

What do you care of the established laws of both physics and chemistry? They are severely violated in manifold ways by the YEC appeal to accelerated nuclear decay.

Yet more comments from the gutter denigrating honest Christian brothers and sisters working diligently to further the kingdom of the Lord Jesus amongst men.

@rsewell

@Burrawang

Young people who have been indoctrinated into the false belief that evolution is real, see no point in Christianity anymore, as they believe Darwin has explained how we came to exist, and thus are not becoming Christians, hence Churches are dying year by year as the atheist and agnostic populations in Australia grow.

There is more than science involved here. Prominent scandals have not helped. But instead of misrepresenting science and talking about topics such as ATP, perhaps you should just declare science and technology to be anathema. Declare that pilgrims should read no science, hear no science, and speak no science. Because the findings of science are not going to alter to accommodate your particular views.

Yes, Ron you are correct in as much as the enemy has infiltrated the Church with paedophiles and other obscene evils that have not placed some large Christian Churches and organisations in a favourable light in the minds of the unsaved masses. But I suspect the numbers of those people who bring the Church into disrepute are a minority and not representative of the vast body of believers worldwide.

But as for science, there is no problem whatsoever with real operational science, however, when forensic science is used to make claims of dates that clearly cannot and do not have all the required information, then the results need to be taken with a grain of salt. That is, the results of such analysis for say the age of a fossil is not objective science with the same degree of certainty as the operational science that makes our phones work, or satellites, or medical advances; operational science should never be confused or conflated with forensic research with regard to the confidence or accuracy placed upon findings regarding age dates for samples.

And where those ‘deep time’ dates that have been determined by forensic science unequivocally contradict the Holy Bible, it’s a no brainer for me at least, to know Who to believe.

God bless,
jon