The Town Hall Archives

smurfs · Guest

uh correction on the age of the Earth it is 4 1/2 billion years old .your right about how long the Shih Tzu has existed. I know that the breed is a companion breed but they are very popular and they cost alot of money if you wert going to show the dog it would cost 3,000 dollars and that is a good prince but I dont think you want to know how much my dog cost let me give you a hint her parents were both compion show dogs and both cinine good citizens! and people did live in China back then, they found eve idence in Bejing they found an Emperors tomb and there were parchments in there the oldest one dated to 230,000 B.C. and im sorry about the exclamation points. So were you trying to say that you dont like Shih Tzus even thought you havent even met one!

Coralfish · Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2003 10:50 pm Post subject:

I apologize if I offended anyone, however I was merely stating my opinion that I at least think that the breed of dog in question has a slight resemblance to a persian cat. It was a harmeless observation; nothing more. However, in my defense I must mention that I have seen a shi tzu before and would not make such a comparison if I had not. In fact, to be extremly specific my next-door neighbor had two(they barked constantly, and she eventually gave them to her mother but that is entirely beside the point). :wink:

I do not want to get into an argument about the age of the Earth, but it is not 4 1/2 billion years old. Certain characteristics making the Earth seem much older were,in many cases, created by the immense pressure of the great Flood waters in Noah's time.

hawkeye · Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2003 12:23 am Post subject:

IL_Queen: The Bible keeps a thourough record of human's history up till Jesus' time. Historians place Jesus's birth at about 4 AD. Thus, using the Bible, we cannot place the the age of human kind much over 10,000 years (being liberal with maximum ages).

I, however, agree the maximum age of human kind to be less than 7,000 years. No (trustworthy) records have a date that is older than that after being converted to our calander.

Jared · Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2003 8:02 am Post subject:

The dating you reference, IL_Queen, that puts the Chinese civilization at starting over 230,000 years ago is extremely innacurate.

I'm sure you're referring to the carbon method, so consider the following: a LIVING snail was dated at being 3,000 years old by C-14 dating. And, even worse, carbon dating claims that the Mt. Saint Helen eruption (1898, I believe) happened 2.5 million years ago -- when it happened only a little over ONE HUNDRED years ago.

Carbon dating is based upon quantities of carbon still residing in bodies. Here's the problem, though: carbon comes from plant life and the whole dating system assumes that every person (or animal of a particular type) eats the same amount of vegetative material and thus age can be judged by how much carbon residue from that material is remaining. However, consider the case of my sister and I: she eats LOTS of that green stuff... I try to avoid vegetables at all costs. (Please no lectures on how I should eat more healthy food!) So, if 100 years after we both died, if our bodies were tested, it might say that I had died a thousand years before her!

Somewhat unlikely, wouldn't you think?

Also, we know little about the earliest Chinese civilization before the dynasties arose... how do we know that their diets didn't consist primarily of meat? That could skewer results significantly!

And don't get me started on the innacuracies of geological formation dating. Short version: the data evolutionists use to make their point is completely innacurate. Besides, evolutionists regularly make up or severely change findings and information to support their utterly fallicious belief system.

smurfs · Guest

I forgive you about the Persine thing, even though I freaked out to even look at or to call my dog's name now!!!!!! and the thing about the area of the chinies empire is what I was thought and same thing about the Earth and Jesus was born in 1 A.D. not 4 A.D. because in latin A.D. means year after our Lord and B.C. means Before Christ . Wink

Jared · Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2003 8:28 am Post subject:

Well, about Christ's birth...

Hawkeye says 4 AD. You say 1 AD. I say neither.

I think it was more like 4 BC -- or even perhaps 6 BC.

Remember, IL_Queen, that the BC/AD system was instituted more than 400 years after Christ's death and all they could do was a rough estimate of when his birth was. Almost all historians would agree that they were slightly off and most favor a BC date for Christ's birth. From reading I did a long time ago, I'd say that 4 BC is the most likely, as most historians believe that there was a census conducted that year. But, obviously, it's impossible to be SURE when He was born. All I'm concerned about is the fact that He was... that makes all the difference!

smurfs · Guest

well then im just confused about every thing!

Coralfish · Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2003 7:35 pm Post subject:

Yes, it can get confusing sometimes when you listen to the mainstream scientists estmate certain things or times to be billions upon billions of years old, while Biblically based science puts the same things at a much younger age. I think since, evolution has become so accepted by the scientific media(if you want to call it that), that when reading these things, one may sometimes forget that the Bible is the source that they are leaving out. And, to keep things clear for me, that is the source I stick to.
Hope that helps a bit.....as,at times, I am not in the habit of typing my ideas too clearly. Wink

smurfs · Guest

Thanks alot coralfish 107 now im even more confused

hawkeye · Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2003 12:18 am Post subject:

What she was saying was there is the Bible scale that maxes out at about 6,000-7,000 years (or so), and the evolutionary scale, which maxes out in the tens of billions of years....

However, there could be mitigating circumstances causing the evolutionary scale to be thrown way off. There are a few possible explanations I can think of for this, but none I can prove.