I find your explanations lacking proof in both cases. But then I find evolution lacking proof as well. It is very easy to make these statements but much harder to supply proof. Hint: check all assumptions at the door.
For instance there are many assumptions in the math behind the old age earth dating theories yet they continue to be expounded by the masses while ignoring the scientific proof that the speed of light is not a constant but is actually slowing down (google Barry Setterfield if interested).
Barry Setterfield's theory is nonsense. There is a lot of interest on the part of physicists in varying speed of light (VSL) theories. These are not based on evidence that the speed of light is different--contrary to Setterfield there is no such evidence. Rather, they are interested in the implications of these theories and the possibility that a VSL model might replace the inflationary model of the early universe. All agree that if the speed of light used to be higher it was billions of years ago, decayed rapidly, and was not as exponentially high as Setterfield proposes. Setterfield's theory has multiple flaws, including the fact that his model would result in frying every living creature with rapid radioactive decay in the earth's crust. The papers in this field are mind-bogglingly complicated, but from my reading Setterfield has not done the calculations required to determine how changing this constant affects other parameters and to confirm his model doesn't have any of the bizarre and catastrophic side-effects of VSL cosmologies.
It is interesting to note that on these threads those of science think themselves different from others of the population by slight changes and differences that occur by reproduction and nature and that change is ongoing while those of creation still think that evolution, change, and differences do not occur and they are clones. How are clones able to know one clone apart from the other clones or do they?