Pro Evolution vs young Earth Creationism.

Glaciers and Diamonds: First, there was no evidence supporting the dating of diamonds in the Precambrian era in your source, nor of your claim regarding glaciers in its source. The source mainly stated how coal was not involved in most diamond formations. The source does not help your arguments in the least. From further research, I found no hard evidence supporting diamond formation in the Precambrian era, only a single article with the same anecdote. No human was around 4,600 million years ago to record this, as humans have, according to evolutionists like the Smithsonian Institution, only been on earth for 200,000 years at most (2). Carbon 14's half-life is 5730 years, so nothing older than 11460 years should have carbon 14 left. However, the diamonds and glaciers are dated as millions of years old, while still possessing carbon 14.Light: Brian Thomas, M.S. states, "light-travel time cannot be used to argue against one view of origins if the alternative view faces the same type of issue." Simply put, a "billions of years ago big bang" could not produce the completely even cosmic microwave background radiation observed all across space. CMB is a faint glow invisible to the human eye, but visible with special radio telescopes, it is deeply involved in the horizon problem. The big bang states that hot spots emitting light spread heat to cooler spots. "Hot and cold spots that lie on opposite sides of the visible universe are simply too far apart to have reached this same temperature even after 13.8 billion years."He goes on to state how light could be instantly visible from earth using a two-way model, stating, "If we use a convention that defines outbound light as traveling at half the measured two-way speed, then light could conceivably travel from distant stars to Earth in an instant," (3).Another article on the ICR website further explains this problem and solutions to it. The four points begin with distance in outer space cannot be knowingly accurately measured. They are calculated using assumed trigonometric principles, but we cannot physically measure them, say, with a measuring tape, and have concrete evidence. It is simply conjecture. Secondly, he describes the potential shortcut taking of light though space. To me, this point was more confusing, so I will elaborate little. There are two concepts of shape in space: curved and straight. The nearest stars show little change between the two, but distant stars show variations of billions of years to fifteen years. The formula to change between straight to curved space is: SX01;2R tan^(-1)R89;{10;(r/2R){11; . Third are theories regarding complete differentiations in light speed over time, be it gradual slowing, dropping to its present rate after the Curse (Genesis Three), or even permeability of space after the Flood (Genesis Nine). Finally, the words "it is good." Surely, as God is incapable of lying, God would not call a creation good that would not be fully visible for several billion years. As such, God could have created it ""with the appearance of age."" Plants, animals, Adam, and Eve were created bearing fruit/fully mature, so why not stars whose light was already to earth? God did not create to deceive, but to be functional (4). Is an invention a good invention if you have to wait a century for the necessary technology to come out so it can be made? No!Falsities in Carbon Dating: As carbon 14's half-life is 5730 or so years, it cannot be used to date the "millions" of years old objects it supposedly dates. If the objects (diamonds, rocks, fossils, need I go on?) are truthfully millions of years old, then there should be no carbon 14 left, yielding the radiometric and carbon 14 dating worthless. However, objects dated as millions of years old still have carbon 14 in them, carbon 14 that should have decayed entirely tens of thousands of years ago, not millions! On the same lines, helium is found today trapped in Zircon crystals supposedly millions of years old. Even in a critique of studies, the author chides the RATE group on using a location near a volcano, as heat increases the diffusion of helium, and still, helium is found in the zircons (7)!God used Evolution: This is simply impossible, similar to what I mentioned earlier. Evolution is a process of "trial and error," different mutations staying as others die out in their inferiority. As such, evolution demands death. Only the helpful traits can stay, and the species, over many years of death and reproduction, becomes the "optimum" species. When God said, "it is good," he couldn"t have been referring to a system he set up that was a bunch of imperfect things changing and dying until they reached what God wanted. What God wanted, he created. Additionally, death did not occur until after the Fall (Genesis Three), so the death of organisms would have been impossible until after God"s creation had been done. God, being omniscient, could not have called an incomplete creation beautiful, just as one cannot get a one hundred on a half-finished paper (5).Abiogenesis: A=not, bio=life, and genesis=beginning. So, a beginning of life from no life. While claims that scientists have "created" life exist, the Guardian, rather unwittingly, disproves everything in their article covering the work of Craig Venter. The Guardian writes, "Craig Venter and his team have built the genome of a bacterium from scratch and incorporated it into a cell to make what they call the world's first synthetic life form," (6). The problem is that they didn"t make life. They made a genome, which is nearly identical to a computer code, and put it into a pre-existing cell. The article goes on to write that the technology might later be used to soak up CO2, or make vaccines. While all this sounds good, pardon the new biological weaponry that is now half-possible or the chance of it escaping and essentially destroying the equilibrium of everything, no life is being created. The life exists in the cell. The DNA and RNA they are transplanting is the code to perform functions. However, no life is being created, created meaning "something from nothing".Mount St Helens Eruption and Aftermath: Claims that the earth must be old due to formations such as the Grand Canyon, the rock needing millions of years to be carved out. When Mount St Helens erupted, evolution and old earth theories were essentially disproved. OBSERVED newly formed rock caps were radiometrically dated at 350,000 years (8), 400 foot thick stratification has been laid since the eruption, including a 25 foot single day deposit. Rills and gullies over 125 feet deep were formed rapidly, and an enormous peat layer similar to some coal beds was laid down on Spirit Lake (9).Fossil Inconsistencies: For good fossils to form, covering must be rapid, which is evidenced by fossils of animals in labor or eating (10). The rapid covering is impossible without a global catastrophic event to quickly cover them, not them dying and sinking to the bottom evolutionists propose. Finally, the horse"s "evolution" is observed, revealing fossils preserved in the same sediment layers. The problem is that the one fossil supposedly evolved millions of years after the other fossils (11). More fossil evidence to come! What fossil evidence do you find most compelling?Sources:(1):http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...(2):http://humanorigins.si.edu...(3):http://www.icr.org...(4):http://www.icr.org...(5):http://biblehub.com...(6):https://www.theguardian.com...(7):http://www.oldearth.org...(8):http://www.icr.org...(9):http://www.icr.org...(10):http://biblicalfoundations.weebly.com...(11):http://creation.com...