This post was really just an explanation of Young Earth Creationism as contrasted to Unitarianism:

Adherents to the young earth model view the geological column in light of the Bible unlike Unitarians who interpret it in terms of millions of years and geological processes witnessed today (although several Unitarianisms are now becoming Actualists to allow catastrophes in their framework). Note that both (or all three) views are arguing about the interpretation of the evidence, not the evidence itself.

Since adherents to the young earth model obviously view the world as young, they believe most of the layers of the geological column were laid during the flood. For instance, according to a chapter on the geological record found in Evolution's Achilles' Heels, "[S]edimentary rocks classified on the geological column as Precambrian, Paleozoic and Mesozoic are all early Flood rocks (the 'Inundatory Stage')... [S]trata labeled as Cenozoic on the column can be early flood, late flood, or post-flood, depending upon where they are located on earth, and on the particular fossils used to classify them on Cenozoic... [F]lood deposition is highly nonlinear, with a large percentage of strata deposited in the first half of the Flood during the Inundatory Stage while the waters were rising on Earth."

The young earth model explains several things that the Unitarianism view cannot. For instance, it explains the world's coal deposits, which would be expected if vegetation all over the world "were uprooted and progressively buried as the floodwaters rose (although some, especially many brown-coal deposits, were buried as the floodwaters receded)" (Evolution's Achilles' Heels). It also explains the large number of fossils we find in strata despite the fact that very few fossils form today because scavengers or time devour them first- but that would not be the case if creatures were killed and buried almost instantly. This would also explain why we find herds of dinosaurs all fossilized together like the one found in Inner Mongolia in 2009. I could go on but must stop now for brevity's sake.

Dr. Tasman Walker, Ph.D. "The Geologic Record." Evolution's Achilles' Heels. Ed. Robert Carter, Ph.D. Georgea: Creation Book Publishers, 2014. 183-184. Print. 

By the way, I heartily recommend my source, Evolution's Heels, as it is a very scientific look into both Evolution and Creationism from a number of PHd-holding scientists.

I got a reply from a student asking about carbon dating and 'microevolution.' This is my reply:

That carbon dating gives such large dates to material that would have distintegrated long before that time had passed makes it seem unreliable. More proof that it is unreliable comes to us from the story of Mount St. Helens. About ten years after its eruption, several scientists went to test the dating mechanisms on the fairly new rocks. They should have gotten ten years tops as the date; instead they got millions of years.

As for microevolution, neither the scriptures nor creationsim has anything against it; it (unlike macroevolution) is a scientific fact supported by both nature and the Bible. Genesis 1:25 stated that all creatures were to reproduce after their own kind, and indeed microevolution is changes within the species, but not from species to species. After all, it makes sense that a creative, caring God would make His creatures able to adapt to their environments in order to survive better. It is important to note, however, that there are safeguards in our genetics that keep us from adapting into another species; more evidence for both the Scriptures and creationism.

For a more technical explanation on Radiometric Dating, I recommend checking out the Institute for Creation Research. They have several articles posted there that I have found very helpful in understanding both the process and the flaws therein.

So, anyone have any questions or comments? Debates and additional information is welcome. 

-Signature by XxEthereal_AngelxX