Natural Selection

That would fit neatly on a placard waved outside a convention of Biologists but please try to address my objections in more depth. How can you persuade a person who doesn't believe the same thing, that it's the case? Why should any non-believer accept the existence of a deity?

Try to construct an argument for what you believe to be the fact of the matter instead of endlessly repeating Biblical dogma.

And this is why scientists test scientific theories to destruction in order to find some flaw in them. When you've done this many times & the theoretical predictions of experiments accord with the results actually obtained, you can be confident to a very high degree that the theory is an accurate description of reality.

An excellent example of this is Relativity. That the flow of time can be changed by our velocity, relative to some fixed point, is completely counter-intuitive & caused scientists to scoff when it was first proposed. But experiments carried out with extremely accurate clocks show this to be correct.

No such experiment ever conducted has shown the theory to be unreliable & that's how science works.

Wouldn't that be better in the other topic?

https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/the-age-of-the-earth

This thread is supposed to be devoted to the subject of Natural Selection.

Or put another way, it's amazing how much difficulty some people have focussing on the subject under discussion? 

Let's review the science. As is so common, creationists are over half a century behind the curve (still, less than a century, so not as bad as usual).

In 1963, the first model for the recession of the Earth due to tidal friction transferring angular momentum to the Moon was published and calculated that it would have taken 1.5-2.3 billion years of recession for the Moon to have reached its current position. This was inconsistent with the fact inferred by other means that the Earth-Moon system is about twice as old as the upper end of that range.

In the 1970s and 1980s, more detailed models were used and arrived at a time of about 4.5 billion years, which agrees rather well with the independent data pertaining to the age of the system.

The most crucial scientific fact is one I mentioned back in post #17, which is that the configuration of the continents has a large effect on the tidal friction. This is intuitively very simple to understand, and quantitative analysis determines that it has very much the size of effect that causes the inaccuracy in the 1963 estimate (which ignored all changes in the configuration of the continents).

For the details, the references to peer-reviewed papers and a list of multiple unforgiveable blunders by famous creationists see Recession of the Moon.

And collagen decomposes over as little as 10000 years, which isn't even close to 65 million years.

And actually, carbon dating proved that the Methuselah tree was 4600 years old, which would be right around the time of... Let's see, was it after the flood of Noah? Nah, that didn't happen. Why else would the oldest discovered tree be 4600 years old?

So how about the 80,000 year old Pando clonal tree colony in Colorado? Probably time to lie about the dates.

The oldest human settlement presently known is over 300,000 years old (located in present day Morocco).

So you are accusing creation scientists of lying?

You guys might be talking about fossilized trees vs living trees. Just a thought.

And just because there is no tree older then 6,000 years wouldn't mean life didn't exist before that time.

I could say the same about your Evolution textbooks, but I guess since "real scientists" who believe in the theory of evolution can write more consistently than an omniscient God who created the universe.  

See, this is the problem with Christians who believe in evolution. You can't agree on any one point that the rest of the Christians have made. You will side with evolutionists before you would with Christians.

Make a point that doesn't contradict science and I will gladly think about it with no objections. I believe in the Bible just as you do, but I can see that it couldn't or at least probably wasn't meant completely literally.

Also don't forget evolutionist is not a synonym for atheist.

That is just it. There are godless scientists that have made the theory of evolution, and as such thay will leave God out of it. This is why Science contradicts the Bible. Also, don't you think God would have wrote the Evolution story if it happened? He wouldn't say the He made the heavens and the earth and all animals in 6 days, he would have been straightforward in writing that, otherwise God would be no better at getting a point across than Allah did in the Qu'ran.

I know that.