Messages

Hello im back.....  (well at least i managed to remember to log on today, it might be another few years before the next time!)

Hi all got a bit busy and then before you know it 6 years have passed by. Saw Tealeaf at G's wedding and thought i would say hello (with a bit of nudging from tealeaf its fair to say How are you all, apart from being older and grey'er, if thats possible Oldie ? And hello all you new old people too...

:hapbday:  :cheers:  To celebrate im going to come and drink all your beer   :dribble:

Happy belated Birthday mate :cheers:  :hapbday:  :cheers:

:hapbday:  :hapbday:  :cheers:  :cheers:  :cheers:  :cheers:  Have a great one mate

[And you thought the 'religion' thread was heavy]

Originally posted by OldBloke@Jul 29 2004, 10:38 PM
And you thought the 'religion' thread was heavy  

[QUOTE]

Originally posted by Sadako+Jul 28 2004, 01:42 PM-->

QUOTE (Sadako @ Jul 28 2004, 01:42 PM)

#7 Seriously though ... / Religion July 28, 2004, 02:45:18 PM Originally posted by Niel@Jul 27 2004, 10:48 PM Show me your God............or any actual proof that he exists/has ever existed. I have as much proof that the "Jolly Green Frog of Pluto" exists.......worship him !!! Here is why the issue of Evolution verses Creation is such an important one. A quote from the book of Romans chapter 1 v18 - 20       New Testement 18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who push the truth away from themselves. 19 For the truth about God is known to them instinctively. God has put this knowledge in their hearts. 20 From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God. Another interesting couple of quotes "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it." H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138. "I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26. #8 Seriously though ... / Religion July 28, 2004, 02:19:01 PM I haven’t got time today to answer lots but: Example: Inmarriage/inbreeding is valid as Adam and Eves kids must have done it to keep the generations going. It doesn't contradict the bible hence it is true. Yes we have the problem regarding Adam and Eve and in breeding, but not as big a problem as an evolutionist who to simplify it down believes every living organism comes from a primordial soup.  Now there’s inbreeding for you! It seems clear that Adam and Eves children would have reproduced together, but you are talking then of less genetic irregularities as time progresses this changes and to prevent the problems caused by inbreeding, in Leviticus 18 God speaks to Moses and lays down a law to prevent brother and sister/close relatives sleeping with each other. Hence the bible does outlaw incest.   ...and this is why discussions about religion are a waste of time. What a lovely open minded approach "If it contradicts the bible then it isn't true!" I believe in moral absolutes and I am open about it.  My stance also is that if I am going to believe in God then I must believe in His self-revelation, over men’s theories.  This doesn’t mean that I and others would not study seemingly opposing data, because I believe that by studying the facts it will be revealed to not contradict the truth although it may take some understanding and digging to discover.  Yes I am sure you will say but you come with preconceptions.  Yes we all have our world view, I come with my Christian world view, the evolutionist comes with his. Whitey: I am sorry about that, and can I explain why they suffered? No.  But I know this as believers they are reaping a reward in paradise today, where there is no more pain or suffering. #9 Seriously though ... / Religion July 27, 2004, 11:01:26 PM Originally posted by Sadako@Jul 27 2004, 06:09 PM However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault. By saying this you basically say that anything that isn't depicted in the Bible isn't true. Talk about dogma. [/b] No I think you will find that quote says that anything that contradicts the bible isnt true. Until tomorrow.    Isnt this fun     #10 Seriously though ... / Religion July 27, 2004, 10:57:41 PM Originally posted by Sadako@Jul 27 2004, 05:15 PM Why a he and not a she? I will talk about the flood tomorrow if i get a chance, but to just answer this question, the scriptures say that God is Spirit so He would not likely be physically male in the sense of man with male sexual organs etc.  For instance it is written that Man and Woman were both created in the image of God.  So why is He seen as male?  That has more to do with His self revelation to us.  He talks of Himself as male so that is how He is proclaimed.  He proclaims Himself as He and as Father. #11 Seriously though ... / Religion July 27, 2004, 07:02:41 PM Some interesting quotes on Radio Carbon dating: lower leg of the Fairbanks mammoth had a Radio Carbon age of 15,380 RCY while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY Harold L Anthony â€" NATURES DEEP FREEZE natural history    1949. Living mollusc shells were carbon dated as being 2,300 years old. Science vol. 141     1963 A freshly culled seal was carbon dated as having died 1,300 years ago. Antarctic journal Vol. 6 Sept-Oct  1971  p221 "If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date', we just drop it." [Professor Brew, quoted by T. Save-Soderbergh (Egyptologist) & Ingrid Olsson (Physicist) in "C-14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology" in Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium, John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1970 p:35; (see also Diggings, August, 1990 p:] Thirty eight laboratories worldwide carbon-dated samples of wood, peat and carbonate, and produced differing dates for similar objects of the same age. The overall finding of the comparative test was that radiocarbon dating was 'two to three times less accurate than implied by their error terms'. Ages of objects assessed by this method cannot therefore be viewed as being credible. [Nature, September 28, 1989 p:267; New Scientist, September 30, 1989 p:10] In Dr Sheridan Bowman's book for the British Museum, "Radiocarbon Dating", it states: "Radiocarbon is not quite as straightforward as it may seem. The technique does not in fact provide true ages, and radiocarbon results must be adjusted (calibrated) to bring them into line with calendar ages". [Diggings, August, 1990 p:8] A 15,000 year difference appeared in the assessment of samples from a single sample block of peat. [New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, Vol. 21, No. 4, 1978 p:463-466] "In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as 'proof' for their beliefs ... The radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. "This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read"." [Written by Robert E. Lee in his article "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error" in Anthropological Journal Of Canada, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1981 p:9] Living penguins have been dated a being 8,000 years old Material from layers where dinosaurs are found were carbon dated as being 34,000 years old. R Daley Earths most challenging mysteries 1972 p280 Hugh Millar, Columbus, OH had 4 dinosaur bone samples carbon dated at 20,000 years old.  The samples were not identified as dinosaur in advance. #12 Seriously though ... / Religion July 27, 2004, 06:03:53 PM Originally posted by whitey@Jul 27 2004, 03:32 PM If there is a god would it's ego be so large that it would want/need to be worshipped ?   Firstly you need to know something more about God, who he is. If he is a god who just looks to recieve worship without return then you would have a god with a huge ego (infact you would have the picture portrayed  in the scriptures of the devil).  However if you consider God in the light of the Christian scriptures, you will find they say He is a God of Love (infact the scriptures say God IS Love).  To truly love that love must be shared, given wholly and recieved wholly hence we were created to be in relationship with God, to share love with him.  We worship God because of who He is. If we truly meet with him where He reveals who He is to us(as in experience by the Holy Spirit of His presence) and we have the knowledge of our salvation which comes by believing in Jesus sacrifice for us, recieving His forgiveness and surrendering ourselves to Him, there is no other reaction.  The first time you experience the peace of being forgiven, of freedom, of unbounded joy no matter the circumstances you are in, of freedom from fear, well your reaction is to worship.  Yes God recieves of our worship however He has given us free will so that we choose whether we do so or not.  If it was forced it would not be true worship.  As for the 12 years in church, if you never experienced the power of God moving you were in the wrong church. There are plenty of churches out there where it is difficult to tell if they bury the bodies outside in the cemetary or if they just stuffed the bodys on the pews! There are plenty of churches out there where even if you were to spend your whole life there all you would experience is hyperthermia or piles.  But believe me they are not all like that.  Ok you still have to have faith to recieve salvation but getting to know God for the rest of your life after that is a serious blast.   #13 Seriously though ... / Religion July 27, 2004, 05:20:41 PM Regarding Radiocarbon dating. To use this of course there would be two assumptions you would have to make. 1.   That the amount of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere has always remained constant. 2.   Its rate of decay has also always remained constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable. Scientists do not know whether the Carbon 14 decay rate has remained constant or whether the amount in the atmosphere has also remained constant. Supposedly present testing reveals that the levels in the atmosphere have been increasing since the 1950s when it was first measured.  This would of course suggest that plants and animals of the past would have differing levels of Carbon 14 to start with, which in itself upsets totally the data obtained by C 14 dating.  Another interesting point with these increasing levels is that we have not yet reached the point of equilibrium, where sunlight causing C 14 in the atmosphere and normal radioactive decay ‘takes it out’.  There must come a point where the formation rate and the radioactive decay rate would equalise â€" equilibrium.  Supposedly a new earth would require 30,000 years to reach the point of equilibrium, yet the levels are still increasing. Regarding Dendrochronology. (which I personally know jack about) Quote from Don Batten PhD. Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow. The oldest living trees, such as the Bristlecone Pines (Pinus longaeva) of the White Mountains of Eastern California, were dated in 1957 by counting tree rings at 4,723 years old. This would mean they pre-dated the Flood which occurred around 4,350 years ago, taking a straight-forward approach to Biblical chronology. However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault. It’s important to remember that we have limited data, and new discoveries have often overturned previous ‘hard facts’. Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often indistinguishable, even under the microscope, from annual rings. As a tree physiologist I would say that evidence of false rings in any woody tree species would cast doubt on claims that any particular species has never in the past produced false rings. Evidence from within the same genus surely counts much more strongly against such a notion. Creationists have shown that the Biblical kind is usually larger than the ‘species’ and in many cases even larger than the ’genus’ Considering that the immediate post-Flood world would have been wetter with less contrasting seasons until the Ice Age waned, many extra growth rings would have been produced in the Bristlecone pines (even though extra rings are not produced today because of the seasonal extremes). Taking this into account would bring the age of the oldest living Bristlecone Pine into the post-Flood era. Claimed older tree ring chronologies depend on the cross-matching of tree ring patterns of pieces of dead wood found near living trees. This procedure depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood using carbon-14 (14C) dating, assuming straight-line extrapolation backwards of the carbon dating. Having placed the fragment of wood approximately using the 14C data, a matching tree-ring pattern is sought with wood that has a part with overlapping 14C age and that also extends to a younger age. A tree ring pattern that matches is found close to where the carbon ‘dates’ are the same. And so the tree-ring sequence is extended from the living trees backwards. Now superficially this sounds fairly reasonable. However, it is a circular process. It assumes that it is approximately correct to linearly extrapolate the carbon ‘clock’ backwards. There are good reasons for doubting this. The closer one gets back to the Flood the more inaccurate the linear extrapolation of the carbon clock would become, perhaps radically so. Conventional carbon-14 dating assumes that the system has been in equilibrium for tens or hundreds of thousands of years, and that 14C is thoroughly mixed in the atmosphere. However, the Flood buried large quantities of organic matter containing the common carbon isotope, 12C, so the 14C/12C ratio would rise after the Flood, because 14C is produced from nitrogen, not carbon. These factors mean that early post-Flood wood would look older than it really is and the ‘carbon clock’ is not linear in this period . The biggest problem with the process is that ring patterns are not unique. There are many points in a given sequence where a sequence from a new piece of wood match well (note that even two trees growing next to each other will not have identical growth ring patterns). Yamaguchi1 recognized that ring pattern matches are not unique. The best match (using statistical tests) is often rejected in favour of a less exact match because the best match is deemed to be ‘incorrect’ (particularly if it is too far away from the carbon-14 ‘age’). So the carbon ‘date’ is used to constrain just which match is acceptable. Consequently, the calibration is a circular process and the tree ring chronology extension is also a circular process that is dependent on assumptions about the carbon dating system.2 The extended tree ring chronologies are far from absolute, in spite of the popular hype. To illustrate this we only have to consider the publication and subsequent withdrawal of two European tree-ring chronologies. According to David Rohl, the Sweet Track chronology from Southwest England was ‘re-measured’ when it did not agree with the published dendrochronology from Northern Ireland (Belfast). Also, the construction of a detailed sequence from southern Germany was abandoned in deference to the Belfast chronology, even though the authors of the German study had been confidant of its accuracy until the Belfast one was published. It is clear that dendrochronology is not a clear-cut, objective dating method despite the extravagant claims of some of its advocates. Conclusion Extended tree ring chronology is not an independent confirmation/calibration of carbon dating earlier than historically validated dates, as has been claimed. /Close quotes #14 Seriously though ... / Religion July 27, 2004, 02:01:01 PM Originally posted by Benny@Jul 27 2004, 12:25 PM I suppose it depends if you the argument is going to go as follows.. Evo - Men evolved from monkeys Cre - But god made that happen Evo - The planets go round the Sun due to gravity, Cre - God made that happen too. But, I think Sadako has it, there is no Adam and Eve, we can pretty much theorise based on fact all the way back to the big bang, what created that is another question. I don't think that evolution is a religion per say, the facts are there.....or am I barking up the wrong tree.. Let me make my beliefs clear.  I am a young earth creationist.  I do not believe the earth is Billions of years old.  I do not believe in the gap-theory creationist view.  I do not believe that my great great great great grandad was a monkey.  I believe that there was a literal 7 day creation aprox. 6000 years ago and yep Adam and Eve started it all   Oh and messed it all up  <_< #15 Seriously though ... / Religion July 27, 2004, 12:51:57 PM Oooh oooh did you have to bring this up this week?  I am snowed under with work.  But just to make it interesting i am a Young Earth Creationist.   The first thing that needs to be done is to unravel what is science (fact) from what is THEORY.  One of the problems is that the two become mixed and certain theorys become understood as proven fact, when they are actually someones  theory of how the facts fit together. Late for a meeting now let the discussions commence, i will join in as soon as i can One last comment to stoke the fires of debate.  Science does not contradict God, only peoples theorys, of how all the science fits together.  Evolution theory is a religion like Christianity, it is an interpretation of the facts which you must choose to believe.   This is going to be fun Pages1 2 3 ... 36 Help | Terms and Rules | Go Up ▲ SMF 2.1.6 © 2025, Simple Machines

[Show me your God............or any actual proof that he exists/has ever existed.I have as much proof that the "Jolly Green Frog of Pluto" exists.......worship him !!!]

Originally posted by Niel@Jul 27 2004, 10:48 PM
Show me your God............or any actual proof that he exists/has ever existed.

I have as much proof that the "Jolly Green Frog of Pluto" exists.......worship him !!!

Here is why the issue of Evolution verses Creation is such an important one.

A quote from the book of Romans chapter 1 v18 - 20       New Testement

18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who push the truth away from themselves.
19 For the truth about God is known to them instinctively. God has put this knowledge in their hearts.
20 From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.


Another interesting couple of quotes
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it." H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.

[Example: Inmarriage/inbreeding is valid as Adam and Eves kids must have done it to keep the generations going. It doesn't contradict the bible hence it is true.]

I haven’t got time today to answer lots but:

Example: Inmarriage/inbreeding is valid as Adam and Eves kids must have done it to keep the generations going. It doesn't contradict the bible hence it is true.

Yes we have the problem regarding Adam and Eve and in breeding, but not as big a problem as an evolutionist who to simplify it down believes every living organism comes from a primordial soup.  Now there’s inbreeding for you!

It seems clear that Adam and Eves children would have reproduced together, but you are talking then of less genetic irregularities as time progresses this changes and to prevent the problems caused by inbreeding, in Leviticus 18 God speaks to Moses and lays down a law to prevent brother and sister/close relatives sleeping with each other. Hence the bible does outlaw incest.

 

...and this is why discussions about religion are a waste of time. What a lovely open minded approach "If it contradicts the bible then it isn't true!"

I believe in moral absolutes and I am open about it.  My stance also is that if I am going to believe in God then I must believe in His self-revelation, over men’s theories.  This doesn’t mean that I and others would not study seemingly opposing data, because I believe that by studying the facts it will be revealed to not contradict the truth although it may take some understanding and digging to discover.  Yes I am sure you will say but you come with preconceptions.  Yes we all have our world view, I come with my Christian world view, the evolutionist comes with his.

Whitey: I am sorry about that, and can I explain why they suffered? No.  But I know this as believers they are reaping a reward in paradise today, where there is no more pain or suffering.

Originally posted by Sadako@Jul 27 2004, 06:09 PM

However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault.

By saying this you basically say that anything that isn't depicted in the Bible isn't true. Talk about dogma. [/b]

No I think you will find that quote says that anything that contradicts the bible isnt true.

Until tomorrow.    Isnt this fun    

[Why a he and not a she?]

Originally posted by Sadako@Jul 27 2004, 05:15 PM
Why a he and not a she?

I will talk about the flood tomorrow if i get a chance, but to just answer this question, the scriptures say that God is Spirit so He would not likely be physically male in the sense of man with male sexual organs etc.  For instance it is written that Man and Woman were both created in the image of God.  So why is He seen as male?  That has more to do with His self revelation to us.  He talks of Himself as male so that is how He is proclaimed.  He proclaims Himself as He and as Father.

Some interesting quotes on Radio Carbon dating:

lower leg of the Fairbanks mammoth had a Radio Carbon age of 15,380 RCY while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY
Harold L Anthony â€" NATURES DEEP FREEZE natural history    1949.

Living mollusc shells were carbon dated as being 2,300 years old.
Science vol. 141     1963

A freshly culled seal was carbon dated as having died 1,300 years ago.
Antarctic journal Vol. 6 Sept-Oct  1971  p221

"If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date', we just drop it." [Professor Brew, quoted by T. Save-Soderbergh (Egyptologist) & Ingrid Olsson (Physicist) in "C-14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology" in Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium, John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1970 p:35; (see also Diggings, August, 1990 p:]

Thirty eight laboratories worldwide carbon-dated samples of wood, peat and carbonate, and produced differing dates for similar objects of the same age. The overall finding of the comparative test was that radiocarbon dating was 'two to three times less accurate than implied by their error terms'. Ages of objects assessed by this method cannot therefore be viewed as being credible. [Nature, September 28, 1989 p:267; New Scientist, September 30, 1989 p:10]

In Dr Sheridan Bowman's book for the British Museum, "Radiocarbon Dating", it states: "Radiocarbon is not quite as straightforward as it may seem. The technique does not in fact provide true ages, and radiocarbon results must be adjusted (calibrated) to bring them into line with calendar ages". [Diggings, August, 1990 p:8]

A 15,000 year difference appeared in the assessment of samples from a single sample block of peat. [New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, Vol. 21, No. 4, 1978 p:463-466]

"In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as 'proof' for their beliefs ... The radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. "This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read"." [Written by Robert E. Lee in his article "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error" in Anthropological Journal Of Canada, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1981 p:9]

Living penguins have been dated a being 8,000 years old

Material from layers where dinosaurs are found were carbon dated as being 34,000 years old.
R Daley Earths most challenging mysteries 1972 p280

Hugh Millar, Columbus, OH had 4 dinosaur bone samples carbon dated at 20,000 years old.  The samples were not identified as dinosaur in advance.

[If there is a god would it's ego be so large that it would want/need to be worshipped ?]

Originally posted by whitey@Jul 27 2004, 03:32 PM
If there is a god would it's ego be so large that it would want/need to be worshipped ?
 

Firstly you need to know something more about God, who he is. If he is a god who just looks to recieve worship without return then you would have a god with a huge ego (infact you would have the picture portrayed  in the scriptures of the devil).  However if you consider God in the light of the Christian scriptures, you will find they say He is a God of Love (infact the scriptures say God IS Love).  To truly love that love must be shared, given wholly and recieved wholly hence we were created to be in relationship with God, to share love with him.  We worship God because of who He is. If we truly meet with him where He reveals who He is to us(as in experience by the Holy Spirit of His presence) and we have the knowledge of our salvation which comes by believing in Jesus sacrifice for us, recieving His forgiveness and surrendering ourselves to Him, there is no other reaction.  The first time you experience the peace of being forgiven, of freedom, of unbounded joy no matter the circumstances you are in, of freedom from fear, well your reaction is to worship.  Yes God recieves of our worship however He has given us free will so that we choose whether we do so or not.  If it was forced it would not be true worship.  As for the 12 years in church, if you never experienced the power of God moving you were in the wrong church. There are plenty of churches out there where it is difficult to tell if they bury the bodies outside in the cemetary or if they just stuffed the bodys on the pews! There are plenty of churches out there where even if you were to spend your whole life there all you would experience is hyperthermia or piles.  But believe me they are not all like that.  Ok you still have to have faith to recieve salvation but getting to know God for the rest of your life after that is a serious blast.  

[Regarding Radiocarbon dating.]

Regarding Radiocarbon dating.
To use this of course there would be two assumptions you would have to make.
1.   That the amount of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere has always remained constant.
2.   Its rate of decay has also always remained constant.

Neither of these assumptions is provable.
Scientists do not know whether the Carbon 14 decay rate has remained constant or whether the amount in the atmosphere has also remained constant.
Supposedly present testing reveals that the levels in the atmosphere have been increasing since the 1950s when it was first measured.  This would of course suggest that plants and animals of the past would have differing levels of Carbon 14 to start with, which in itself upsets totally the data obtained by C 14 dating.  Another interesting point with these increasing levels is that we have not yet reached the point of equilibrium, where sunlight causing C 14 in the atmosphere and normal radioactive decay ‘takes it out’.  There must come a point where the formation rate and the radioactive decay rate would equalise â€" equilibrium.  Supposedly a new earth would require 30,000 years to reach the point of equilibrium, yet the levels are still increasing.

Regarding Dendrochronology. (which I personally know jack about)
Quote from Don Batten PhD.
Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow. The oldest living trees, such as the Bristlecone Pines (Pinus longaeva) of the White Mountains of Eastern California, were dated in 1957 by counting tree rings at 4,723 years old. This would mean they pre-dated the Flood which occurred around 4,350 years ago, taking a straight-forward approach to Biblical chronology.
However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault. It’s important to remember that we have limited data, and new discoveries have often overturned previous ‘hard facts’.
Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often indistinguishable, even under the microscope, from annual rings. As a tree physiologist I would say that evidence of false rings in any woody tree species would cast doubt on claims that any particular species has never in the past produced false rings. Evidence from within the same genus surely counts much more strongly against such a notion. Creationists have shown that the Biblical kind is usually larger than the ‘species’ and in many cases even larger than the ’genus’
Considering that the immediate post-Flood world would have been wetter with less contrasting seasons until the Ice Age waned, many extra growth rings would have been produced in the Bristlecone pines (even though extra rings are not produced today because of the seasonal extremes). Taking this into account would bring the age of the oldest living Bristlecone Pine into the post-Flood era.
Claimed older tree ring chronologies depend on the cross-matching of tree ring patterns of pieces of dead wood found near living trees. This procedure depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood using carbon-14 (14C) dating, assuming straight-line extrapolation backwards of the carbon dating. Having placed the fragment of wood approximately using the 14C data, a matching tree-ring pattern is sought with wood that has a part with overlapping 14C age and that also extends to a younger age. A tree ring pattern that matches is found close to where the carbon ‘dates’ are the same. And so the tree-ring sequence is extended from the living trees backwards.
Now superficially this sounds fairly reasonable. However, it is a circular process. It assumes that it is approximately correct to linearly extrapolate the carbon ‘clock’ backwards. There are good reasons for doubting this. The closer one gets back to the Flood the more inaccurate the linear extrapolation of the carbon clock would become, perhaps radically so. Conventional carbon-14 dating assumes that the system has been in equilibrium for tens or hundreds of thousands of years, and that 14C is thoroughly mixed in the atmosphere. However, the Flood buried large quantities of organic matter containing the common carbon isotope, 12C, so the 14C/12C ratio would rise after the Flood, because 14C is produced from nitrogen, not carbon. These factors mean that early post-Flood wood would look older than it really is and the ‘carbon clock’ is not linear in this period .
The biggest problem with the process is that ring patterns are not unique. There are many points in a given sequence where a sequence from a new piece of wood match well (note that even two trees growing next to each other will not have identical growth ring patterns). Yamaguchi1 recognized that ring pattern matches are not unique. The best match (using statistical tests) is often rejected in favour of a less exact match because the best match is deemed to be ‘incorrect’ (particularly if it is too far away from the carbon-14 ‘age’). So the carbon ‘date’ is used to constrain just which match is acceptable. Consequently, the calibration is a circular process and the tree ring chronology extension is also a circular process that is dependent on assumptions about the carbon dating system.2
The extended tree ring chronologies are far from absolute, in spite of the popular hype. To illustrate this we only have to consider the publication and subsequent withdrawal of two European tree-ring chronologies. According to David Rohl, the Sweet Track chronology from Southwest England was ‘re-measured’ when it did not agree with the published dendrochronology from Northern Ireland (Belfast). Also, the construction of a detailed sequence from southern Germany was abandoned in deference to the Belfast chronology, even though the authors of the German study had been confidant of its accuracy until the Belfast one was published. It is clear that dendrochronology is not a clear-cut, objective dating method despite the extravagant claims of some of its advocates.
Conclusion
Extended tree ring chronology is not an independent confirmation/calibration of carbon dating earlier than historically validated dates, as has been claimed.
/Close quotes

[I suppose it depends if you the argument is going to go as follows..Evo - Men evolved from monkeysCre - But god made that happenEvo - The planets go round the Sun due to gravity,Cre - God made that happen too.But, I think Sadako has it, there is no Adam and Eve, we can pretty much theorise based on fact all the way back to the big bang, what created that is another question. I don't think that evolution is a religion per say, the facts are there.....or am I barking up the wrong tree..]

Originally posted by Benny@Jul 27 2004, 12:25 PM
I suppose it depends if you the argument is going to go as follows..

Evo - Men evolved from monkeys
Cre - But god made that happen
Evo - The planets go round the Sun due to gravity,
Cre - God made that happen too.


But, I think Sadako has it, there is no Adam and Eve, we can pretty much theorise based on fact all the way back to the big bang, what created that is another question. I don't think that evolution is a religion per say, the facts are there.....or am I barking up the wrong tree..

Let me make my beliefs clear.  I am a young earth creationist.  I do not believe the earth is Billions of years old.  I do not believe in the gap-theory creationist view.  I do not believe that my great great great great grandad was a monkey.  I believe that there was a literal 7 day creation aprox. 6000 years ago and yep Adam and Eve started it all   Oh and messed it all up  <_<

Oooh oooh did you have to bring this up this week?  I am snowed under with work.  But just to make it interesting i am a Young Earth Creationist.  
The first thing that needs to be done is to unravel what is science (fact) from what is THEORY.  One of the problems is that the two become mixed and certain theorys become understood as proven fact, when they are actually someones  theory of how the facts fit together.

Late for a meeting now let the discussions commence, i will join in as soon as i can

One last comment to stoke the fires of debate.  Science does not contradict God, only peoples theorys, of how all the science fits together.  Evolution theory is a religion like Christianity, it is an interpretation of the facts which you must choose to believe.  

This is going to be fun