No, you have not addressed this:
Radioactive dating techniques ‘prove’ that the earth is billions of years old, say evolutionists. However, these techniques are based upon several assumptions, including that rates of radioactive decay have always been CONSTANT. Now new research has shown that decay rates can VARY according to the chemical environment of the material being tested.
While the relatively small variation (1.5%) observed so far is unlikely to persuade ‘old-earthers’ to adopt a biblical time-line, the discovery that radioactive dating ‘can no longer be called precisely “clocklike”’ prompted the journal Science to comment, ‘Certainty, it seems, is on the wane.’
Earth and Planetary Science Letters 171, 1999,
pp. 235–328. Science, October 29, 1999, pp. 882–883.
You have also skipped over how the eye “evolved” or the heart “evolved”.
I skip left wing like like “religious tolerance”. It's more pseudo science that is based on feelings, not facts.
If you can't figure out how weather and climate affect carbon dating and where there are deserts today, that have shells in it, I rest my case in being totally convinced that you are not as learned as you would like others to believe. THIS is common knowledge. Make that your next assignment, in this hobby of yours, what deserts have shells buried in the sand. Pretend the ice age never happened as well .... .
Truly, you need to quit while others may still take you seriously.
As for the evolution of the heart, what about the detailed abstract I posted above? Did you miss it, are just going to ignore it because it disagrees with your a priori convictions?
Unless you can come up with something more meaningful than quoting creationist websites, I have work to do.