Evolution vs Creationism

Before I refute your points, I will explain them briefly so the viewers can quickly understand what each is. Amino acid racemization: Amino acids in decay rates from fossils, which are normally constant, can be used to determine earth age. However, the time it takes to fossilize is highly variable, depending on pressure and other forces, so it would make sense that the decay rates could be "jump started" by quick fossilization or other forces. "To use rates of racemization as a dating method, however, the entire history of the fossil material would have to be known, including temperature and the entire diagenetic process, especially the chemical environment that contributed to this process, and most especially the pH. Since all of these factors, most of which accelerate racemization rates, cannot be known, it is suggested that the apparent ages obtained by this method are unreliable and, with few exceptions, are much older than the real ages, " The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) says (1). The Baptistina asteroid family: Two asteroids hit each other, and are now going in similar orbits. Tracing the orbit patterns with the current speeds, scientists presume them to have been moving for 80 million years. Since we do not have evidence of how fast the asteroids were moving at the point of collision, how do we know that it took these asteroids this long to get to their current place? How do we even know that these asteroids did collide with each other? Could not have gravity changed their direction prior to human realization? This asteroid family was theoretically the asteroid to kill the dinosaurs, but evidence from NASA's WISE spacecraft shows that these asteroids are probably only 80 million years old, as oppose to the original 160 million years. If scientists were wrong once, why could they not be wrong twice, three times? And, remember, this is only a theory. It should only be brought into careful consideration, not labeled as factual evidence as the original source makes it out to be (source 4). Continental drift: A theory that the continents used to be joined together in a "supercontinent." However, scientists lack a plausible cause for the drift's start. Many, myself included, do believe that there used to be a supercontinent, but that the separation was caused differently. I believe that the cause was the release of many geysers under the land, that all erupted and forced the land out in different directions. That is one part of the true story of Noah's Ark. The ICR says, "If continental separation occurred during Noah's Flood, a host of problems in the tectonic dilemma can be solved." The article (2) explains more. Coral: Another thought about timing the rates of growth to estimate earth age, but with coral. However, studies have shown that corals can grow very quickly, or slowly, depending on conditions. This means that if before a time, conditions for corals could have been near perfect, allowing corals to thrive, but then conditions could have changed, to what they are today, changing growth rates. A fifty year study by the United States Geological Survey shows that nature's "clock" may be out of synch (3). This could mean that we could be interpreting nature's signs wrong, and then making false inferences. Dendrochronology: Counting the tree rings to estimate the number of years from the tree's "birth." This is not reliable, however, as we do not know what conditions were like thousands of years ago. Conditions may have been suitable enough for trees to grow several modern years worth of growth in just one ancient year. The rings on a tree tend to go light to dark to light, etc., or thick to thin to thick. However, two rings (light/dark, thin/thick) make up a year, not just a thick or thin ring. Because I believe the earth to be around 6,000 years old, splitting the one year ring into two years, doubling the age, could give around 12,000 years of age (4). Distant starlight: Light travels at a certain rate, and measuring that rate for the distance a star is from earth can tell us the number of years the star has been around. Answers in Genesis (AiG), another organization, tackles this problem. They say, "Any attempt to scientifically estimate the age of something will necessarily involve a number of assumptions. These can be assumptions about the starting conditions, constancy of rates, contamination of the system, and many others. If even one of these assumptions is wrong, so is the age estimate. Sometimes an incorrect worldview is to blame when people make faulty assumptions. The distant starlight argument involves several assumptions that are questionable"any one of which makes the argument unsound. Let"s examine a few of these assumptions.". Yes, that quote was about assumptions in general, but they go on to give several of those assumptions. They say later that time is not constant, so the timing of modern dating may be off. "Many people assume that time flows at the same rate in all conditions. At first, this seems like a very reasonable assumption. But, in fact, this assumption is false. And there are a few different ways in which the nonrigid nature of time could allow distant starlight to reach earth within the biblical timescale. "Many people assume that time flows at the same rate in all conditions. At first, this seems like a very reasonable assumption. But, in fact, this assumption is false. And there are a few different ways in which the nonrigid nature of time could allow distant starlight to reach earth within the biblical timescale." One of these ways is gravity. Gravity does indeed slow down the speed of light, and Albert Einstein himself discovered that. "Albert Einstein discovered that the rate at which time passes is affected by motion and by gravity. For example, when an object moves very fast, close to the speed of light, its time is slowed down. This is called 'time-dilation.' So, if we were able to accelerate a clock to nearly the speed of light, that clock would tick very slowly. If we could somehow reach the speed of light, the clock would stop completely. This isn't a problem with the clock; the effect would happen regardless of the clock"s particular construction because it is time itself that is slowed. Likewise, gravity slows the passage of time. A clock at sea-level would tick slower than one on a mountain, since the clock at sea-level is closer to the source of gravity. It seems hard to believe that velocity or gravity would affect the passage of time since our everyday experience cannot detect this. After all, when we are traveling in a vehicle, time appears to flow at the same rate as when we are standing still. But that"s because we move so slowly compared to the speed of light, and the earth"s gravity is so weak that the effects of time-dilation are correspondingly tiny. However, the effects of time-dilation have been measured with atomic clocks," (5). The article goes into greater and other details that I do not have space to mention. I will hopefully be able to address the Mount Saint Helens Eruption in the next round. (1) http://www.icr.org... (2) http://www.icr.org... (3) http://www.usgs.gov... (4) http://rationalwiki.org... This is my opponent's source from last round. (5) https://answersingenesis.org...