The Theory of Evolution is a lie. We did not come from monkeys.

First off, you're no closer to proving the topic. You are simply going on another rant with the end result of showing that you don't understand basic science. This is no way to prove evolution is not a valid theory or at the very least just a theory which scientists are only misguided about. The term lie implies that they, in fact, know the truth but are concealing it and spreading falsehoods. Noah's ark has no evidence for it and should not be taken literally. If the oldest living tree is about 4,300 years old then that would not be evidence for a global flood beyond that point. It would, however, be good evidence for no global flood within the last 4,300 years. However, this is a moot point anyhow. The oldest plant is the the King Clone Creosote bush at 11,700 years old. Furthermore we have tree rings going back 11,000 years and remarkably good geology to show that we've suffered no global floods anytime in our geologic history. The idea that you think that there is a mutation to turn a fish into a man is part of the problem. Evolution is about small gradual steps. The claim is that I can walk one meter going right foot left foot... but I can't walk 100 km! There's noting between one step and a thousand miles which prevents the next step from happening. I would highly recommend reading "Your Inner Fish" as a good book on showing how the typical fish body type actually does give rise to the human body type. The general head, body, four limbs, mouth, eyes layout actually dates back to fish. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. Although, I will admit that if the Earth were only 6000 years old, that wouldn't be enough time for evolution to create the diversity of life we see today. However, the evidence here is overwhelming. You mention uranium decay but cite a flawed metric for using this to date the age of such things. The rate at which heated zircon loses helium while pressurized under the ground is perhaps the worst thing you could look at as pretty much anything is going to screw up the reading. The best would probably be the ratio of isotopes of the associated lead with the uranium. Uranium has a pretty standard ratio of U238 and U235 which results in a ratio of Pb236 and Pb233 which are hard to miss. Comparing the ratio of the lead to uranium and a quick calculation of half-life gives a decay time of more than 3 billion years old (typically the rocks aren't as old as the planet). The existence of halos in mica would be evidence of radon exposure, as they are found exposed to uranium (which gives off radon) this should be expected. Further, you can't tell the isotope or even the element as all it is is a sign of alpha decay. You are choosing to pretend it's the shortest half-live version of polonium to apparently suppose that some of it got by magic. Really pretty much any alpha decay element could do that. A number of elements decay to other elements even those with exceedingly short half-lives. The existence of elements with short half-lives does not require one to conclude that such isotopes are unable to be produced today. Carbon 14, for example, has a half-life of 5700 years or so and is still around... this is because despite the half-life more of it is made all the time (in fact the atmospheric ratio is pretty well preserved and thus allows one to do carbon dating). The existence of elements with short half lives are commonly produced by the decay of elements with much longer half-lives. Simply detecting short-half lifed elements would prove nothing. However, this isn't even a case of that, it's much much weaker as far as claims go. The biggest problem with this crap however is that it is just that, utter crap. Simply citing a few error ridden studies of this or that and hoping people haven't come across them or can recognize the flaws is not a way of proving your case. Your case is not strengthened by flawed evidence and poor reasoning and endless litanies of flawed understanding. You need evidence. The sheer lack of evidence for your case is problematic. First, you need to establish that evolution is false for the sake of this debate. Thus far you've cut and pasted some nonsense from some creationists sites and hoped that I was a moron. I doubt you even understood the claims you were making. Second, you need to establish that scientists know that evolution is false (thus making it a lie). This will be hard to do because even if all the overwhelming evidence is somehow wrong, it's still reasonable to conclude that the sound science is actually sound science. I'm sorry but the universe did not form several thousand years after the Egyptians first brewed beer. Dinosaur fossils are, get this, really fossils which really do date back millions of years before the P-T boundary. There really is no evidence for a global flood and it really should be disregarded as a feasible possibility. The principles for dating are the same as those which allowed us to build the atomic bomb. One would think that the overwhelming scientific advancements over the last several hundred years would give science some credit. Scientific principles which allowed for the creation of technologies which have made our lives immeasurably better are not wrong. You are simply confused. We use evolution to search for oil by way of marker fossils which allow geologists to find the correct layer of rock based on the organisms which existed at the time. We use evolution to inform our use of antibiotics which are quickly becoming useless as more and more superbugs evolve. Furthermore, we are today using evolution as an engineering process directly by way of genetic programming and evolutionary algorithms. Directly using evolution to solve engineering problems has lead to a number of patents and more than a few on the market products. Not to put too fine a point on it, but you virtually ignored everything I wrote in the previous post. I went to a lot of effort to point out your errors and explain evolution and you picked up that I said Noah's Ark and pasted a bunch of crap from a creationist site. Tisk.