Ah good. I can avoid speaking more personal beliefs (no good can come of that) and get back to things that are more objective. It is ironic that you mention chemistry and the diversity of elements as part of the wonder of creation. You realize that the formation of elements via fusion reactions in stars that are burning either H2 or He (as well as going supernova) can be directly studied with modern spectroscopy and validated and is pretty decent validation that a "singularity" (ie big bang) is quite possible? Silly Nobel Lauriates; they should have checked scripture before they made their observations.
To attack radioactive decay as a way to measure time is pretty funny. There is certainly an uncertainty associated from backcalculating time from a first order reaction, but nothing that would result in a discrepancy like 6000 vs 450000000000 as a result. The issue is one primarily of changes in temperature and how to approximate. To deal with this, the ratio of oxygen 18 to oxygen 16 in glaciers and oceans has been found to be a much more accurate measurement of geologic time . That is because O16 and O18 partition in liquid and ice phases as a known function of temperature. In short, noone who does geology is even using carbon dating for precise estimates of the earth's age any more.
Kinda funny that religious folk attack scientists for putting error bars on their results; and other scientists attack them if they don't
