AJ, you seem to be trying to solve the whole thing backwards. You start with the assumption that your argument(that god created everything) is correct, and then if anything comes along to contradict that, you twist that fact to adjust it to your assumption. In this case, you twisted the fact that rates of decay are constant to fit your hypothesis(note the word hypothesis), and concluded that since using constant rates of decay go against your assumption(which HAS to be correct, in your view), hence rates of decay cannot be constant.
Sadly, you dont take a "To Prove" and then fit stuff to make it true. You prove things the other way around, by looking at facts(not the "to prove") and then drawing conclusions.
As far as the topic goes, I find it funny that creationists say "evolution has no proof", "we havent seen it, hence it isnt true", then "prove" their points based on a story in a book, thus commiting the same mistakes they accuse evolutionists of.
The argument that "life is meaningless without god, hence god exists" is foolish since it assumes that 1)only god gives life meaning and 2)life HAS to have a meaning. Why DOES life have to have a meaning? It is a good way to make yourself feel good, but sadly, facts do not care about your emotions. That's why they are called "cold hard facts"
There are also some misconceptions here about Evolution. Unlike Pokemon, Evolution does not involve RAPID major transformations. It is in fact, a collection of small changes over BILLIONS of years accumulated together to give a "new" species. These changes mostly occur due to changes in the environment, surroundings or some event which may force the changes to occur(over a large period of time obviously) for the species to survive. These changes MAY occur early enough(or at all)before the species dies out. Simple adaptability. We have not observed the BIG "transformations"(or the accumulated effect of the small ones) coz these take billions of years to take place and we have got quite short life spans. Were there a way to go back a few million years, some notable changes from the present world might be noticeable. An example of this would be how some insects have grown more resistant(and sometimes even immune) to DDT over the years, while others are still susceptible to it. This might not seem such a big change to humans, but to the insects, it is a matter of survival, and the "fittest" have survived.
Hope that helps clear up some parts of the debate(though there never was one; on one side you have some fact and proof, on the other you have a book of fairy tales)

The way I look at it is that creationists and evolutionist are all presented with the exact same information/facts. It's just a matter of how you interpret them. Almost all the facts (maybe even all) fit pretty nicely with the Book of Genesis, while evolutionist are still struggling to make the facts work for them. And no, I will not change the way I argue for you.

Not really, all the facts we have work fine with evolution. On the other hand facts need to be ignored or twisted to make it fit with biblical events such as the global flood.

Edit- They usually don't have the same facts either as it almost always seems that creationists do not look into the topic as deeply and will not know facts like speciation having occurred.

And no, I will not change the way I argue for you.

Dont, its really your choice. But do bear in mind that working backwards to try and fit in facts assuming that your conclusion is right is a fallacy.

The way I look at it is that creationists and evolutionist are all presented with the exact same information/facts. It's just a matter of how you interpret them. Almost all the facts (maybe even all) fit pretty nicely with the Book of Genesis, while evolutionist are still struggling to make the facts work for them. And no, I will not change the way I argue for you.

Dinosaurs? Fossils? If the earth were 6000 years old, dinosaurs and man either lived together(The Flintstones?) or those fossils appeared all by themselves. The great flood? There is hardly any real PROOF that an omnipotent, omniscient(2 concepts which are logically incorrent anyways) god exists, apart from a book, whose very credibility is doubtful, looking at the other things in it(great flood, creationism, virgin births, talking snakes etc). And even supposing for the moment that a superior being were to exist, when did humans become so special that superior beings started taking such an active interest in us?
God was created by a few humans to make them feel good about themselves, put their own rules as that being's command, and then impose them in the name of that imaginary being. It made the common people feel good since they thought they knew everything and that they were being protected by a superior force and let the rulers get away with just about anything(it still does btw). Kinda like a Santa Claus, only this time, there was no one around to say it didnt exist(and those who did were more or less persecuted over history).

Just wanted to share a few interesting things from a website I found. I will not be arguing or defending these if anyone has a response (no time), just wanted to share.

In my point of view both evolution and creation is bogus. But see, what if the aliens crafted humans for their experiment for creating first alien created being. Any way both contain bugs in their stories and theories. I don’t believe in both.

I fully consent to the fact that the theory of evolution nothing more than a trash. Had it been true why human being have stopped further evolution.

We received a response from Dawkins to our request for a face-to-face debate: "I HAVE WOWED NOT TO DEBATE." What this actually means is, "I have been defeated on the subject of Darwinism. I have no intention of debating with anyone and being humiliated." Of course Richard Dawkins cannot enter into any such debate, because he will be unable to answer the questions put to him:

• He will be unable to account for the more than 100 million fossils that have been unearthed and point to the existence of perfect and flawless life forms. He will be unable explain how it is that THEY HAVE REMAINED UNCHANGED FOR HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS and why THEY HAVE NOT ANY FORERUNNER WITH INTERMEDIATE FORM CHARACTERISTICS.
• He will be unable to explain, as he has been unable to in the past, why THERE IS NOT A SINGLE INTERMEDIATE FORM among all the many millions of fossils that have been unearthed.
• He will be unable to account for the fossil skulls, millions of years old, that are identical to present-day tigers, horses, elephants, turtles, wolves, birds, rabbits, foxes, zebras, deer and other life forms, in terms of the theory of evolution. He will be unable to explain how it is that life forms appeared MILIONS OF YEARS AGO WITH THE SAME APPEARANCE THEY STILL HAVE TODAY and HOW THEY HAVE NOT CHANGED OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS.
• He would have to admit that the horse series, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Haeckel’s drawings, dinosaur fossils with feathers stuck on them and peppered moths pinned to tree trunks ARE ALL HOAXES.
• He would have to admit that the fossils, numbering no more than a handful, that Darwinists have portrayed as intermediate forms have all been scientifically discredited, THAT THE FOSSIL OF A PERFECTLY FORMED FLYING BIRD CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH ARCHAEOPTERYX, depicted as an example of the transition from land to air, HAS BEEN DISCOVERED, THAT THE COELACANTH, which they cited as an example of the transition from water to land, IS STILL LIVING TODAY, and THAT LUCY HAS GONE DOWN IN HISTORY AS AN APE.
• He will have no answer to the question of WHY THEY HID AWAY Cambrian fossils, living fossils that were unearthed subsequently, and finally 100 million fossils that exist today.
• He will have nothing to say on the subject of the probability of a single functional protein, the building blocks of life, emerging by chance is just 1 in 10-950, and that in mathematical terms this means zero possibility. He will be unable to explain how life could have formed as a result of coincidences when not even a single cell can be manufactured under laboratory conditions.
• HE WILL BE UNABLE TO EXPLAIN WHO ACTUALLY SEES THE IMAGE IN THE BRAIN although there is no light either outside or inside that brain. NEITHER WILL HE BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN WHO HEARS sounds, speech and music within the sound-proof brain. AND HE WILL HAVE NO ANSWER TO THE QUESTION OF WHO IT IS THAT TAKES PLEASURE FROM, INTERPRETS AND REACTS TO THE IMAGES, MUSIC, TACTILE SENSATIONS AND SCENTS IN THE BRAIN.

Harun Yahya - WE CHALLENGE DAWKINS TO A DISCUSSION BEFORE THE PUBLIC

I'm not going to continue debating, but I'd like to point out that humans have been evolving. They've changed physically since the oldest skeleton we dug up. A few hundred years is hardly anything when you consider how much time the world has had to exist.