All the long age dating techniques have been proven to be false as they vastly vary in measuring the age of the same thing – part 2

[SavedByTheLord]

There is no law of entropy, you may mean the second law of thermodynamics which only applies to closed system, which is not the case here..

The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to living creatures of course.
And when they die what happens to them? Lots of disorder.
And when they reproduce there are errors in the genetic code which will increase the the genome of ALL species over time,

 

[Esteban X]

The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to living creatures of course.
And when they die what happens to them? Lots of disorder.

No. You are ignoring the fact that a living creature is not a closed system. Even dead a living creature is a biome of other living creatures so decay, while you may see it as disorder, is in fact a vibrant living system.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No. You are ignoring the fact that a living creature is not a closed system. Even dead a living creature is a biome of other living creatures so decay, while you may see it as disorder, is in fact a vibrant living system.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to living creatures of course.
And when they die what happens to them? Lots of disorder.
And when they reproduce there are errors in the genetic code which will increase the the genome of ALL species over time,

 

[Esteban X]

The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to living creatures of course.
And when they die what happens to them? Lots of disorder.
And when they reproduce there are errors in the genetic code which will increase the the genome of ALL species over time,

So you said before. You're still wrong

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to living creatures of course.
And when they die what happens to them? Lots of disorder.
And when they reproduce there are errors in the genetic code which will increase the the genome of ALL species over time,

Living things live on the earth.
Earth is not a closed system.
Earth is fed with workable energy by the sun 24/7

Once again, your nonsense is so easily shown to be just that: nonsense.

If entropy were a problem for living things, then a tree would not grow. Babies wouldn't become adults.
Nothing would live.

 

[metis]

No.
The RCC was never the church.
Ans the cannon existed since before 70 AD.

Well:
The Catholic Church provided a conciliar definition of its biblical canon in 382 at the (local) Council of Rome (based upon the Decretum Gelasianum, of uncertain authorship)[4][5] as well as at the Council of Trent of 1545, reaffirming the Canons of Florence of 1442 and North African Councils (Hippo and Carthage) of 393–419.[6][7] For the Church of England, it was made dogmatic on the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563; for Calvinism, on the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647.

For the first three hundred years of Christianity, there was no widely agreed upon canon. -- Development of the New Testament canon - Wikipedia


Thus, the canon you likely use as most Protestant churches do, is from that Catholic canon.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

A

Well:
The Catholic Church provided a conciliar definition of its biblical canon in 382 at the (local) Council of Rome (based upon the Decretum Gelasianum, of uncertain authorship)[4][5] as well as at the Council of Trent of 1545, reaffirming the Canons of Florence of 1442 and North African Councils (Hippo and Carthage) of 393–419.[6][7] For the Church of England, it was made dogmatic on the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563; for Calvinism, on the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647.

For the first three hundred years of Christianity, there was no widely agreed upon canon. -- Development of the New Testament canon - Wikipedia


Thus, the canon you likely use as most Protestant churches do, is from that Catholic canon.

And the list of books and the words in those books all existed before 70 AD.
Thanks for proving my claim.

 

[Esteban X]

And the list of books and the words in those books all existed before 70 AD.
Thanks for proving my claim.

So you're saying that the Christian canon existed before most of the New Testament was even written

Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

 

[SavedByTheLord]

So you're saying that the Christian canon existed before most of the New Testament was even written

Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

All of the NT was written before circa 70 AD else it would have mentioned the destruction of the temple.

 

[metis]

A

And the list of books and the words in those books all existed before 70 AD.
Thanks for proving my claim.

That's not the point, so all you are doing is playing games.

Most of the books reviewed prior to canonization were rejected by the church for various reasons, thus the selection of the canon wasn't a slam dunk. Also, other churches by the 4th century chose some other books not in the Catholic and most Protestant canons, probably including yours.

The sad reality is that you really don't know much about early church history, so maybe do some studying on that matter.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

That's not the point, so all you are doing is playing games.

Most of the books reviewed prior to canonization were rejected by the church for various reasons, thus the selection of the canon wasn't a slam dunk. Also, other churches by the 4th century chose some other books not in the Catholic and most Protestant canons, probably including yours.

The sad reality is that you really don't know much about early church history, so maybe do some studying on that matter.

The early church histroy is in the 27 NT books.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All of the NT was written before circa 70 AD else it would have mentioned the destruction of the temple.

That is a non sequitur. Why would they need to mention that? The dating is actually much later.


You should really study the Bible properly some day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The early church histroy is in the 27 NT books.

Not al all. Those are the books that were just chosen in the 4th century CE.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Not al all. Those are the books that were just chosen in the 4th century CE.

No.
They existed and were accepted before 70 AD.

 

[Esteban X]

No.
They existed and were accepted before 70 AD.

You'll have to show me some serious scholarship to back up that claim.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You'll have to show me some serious scholarship to back up that claim.

No NT book mentions the destruction of the temple and that occurred circa 70 AD.
So all written before then.
And the apostles were all alive before 70 AD so would have accepted the 27 books.

 

[Nimos]

So, as i said, science is not infallible and that is because the issue isnt the science, its the method and interpretations used in order to support pre existing hypothesis that is the problem. In the case of the Chamberlains, all evidence to the contrary of convicting her was disgarded and the result was a guilty verdict in 2 different court hearings.

What does this have to do with science? two court hearings and a faulty product = science being wrong.

 

[Esteban X]

No NT book mentions the destruction of the temple and that occurred circa 70 AD.
So all written before then.
And the apostles were all alive before 70 AD so would have accepted the 27 books.

Then why do the majority of Christian scholars place the authorship of most of the New Testament at a later date?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Then why do the majority of Christian scholars place the authorship of most of the New Testament at a later date?

Beware of the scribes and especially beware of ”the scholars”

No NT book mentions the destruction of the temple and that occurred circa 70 AD.
So all written before then.

 

[Esteban X]

Beware of the scribes and especially beware of ”the scholars”

No NT book mentions the destruction of the temple and that occurred circa 70 AD.
So all written before then.

I would suggest being wary of the ignorant and certain before being wary of scholars.