blasher,
you wrote, "I would love to see a link to look at one of those charts superimposed on a date scale !!!!"
Are you suggesting such a chart doesn't exist? Do what you love and find it yourself. If you were a studied person, you would have already done that long ago, before coming to your current beliefs. For what it's worth, I don't have a lot of faith in the detail of those charts because they use the principle of maximum parsimony. Do you know what that is? What I don't like about that process is the oversimplification that results, but it does make categorization simpler, and I can appreciate that.
There has been lots of new life created in the last 30,000 years. In fact, there has been new life created in the past few years through genetic engineering by choice as humans do it, as opposed to genetic engineering by accident, as Nature does it. You are wrong in previously saying there has not been new life created since the "first", or "only" Creation, whatever and whenever that is or was.
You previously wrote, "that there is no 'fact' when it comes to origins , etc. . . . that is why I stated that Faith is needed first". And with that attitude you suggest that I do "deeper research", to use your own words. You must be kidding. You must be suggesting that I do more research into Faith, not into fact.
You have already claimed that "radio-active dating" has been proven wrong because they rely on assumptions and faith. You are wrong about that also, which I suspected in the beginning because you didn't use the common term "carbon dating". You haven't studied radio-active dating, as you implied; you've only studied what some Creationist has written or said about carbon dating. If you would have studied more, you would know that there are more types of radio-active dating than just carbon dating, and that those dating methods go back in time much farther than carbon dating. You would know that carbon dating is used for the study of relatively recent events because the accuracy would be greater because the half-life is shorter. Longer dating is done with other elements having longer half-life.
The same is true for what you call "space-measurements" (to use your own language), whatever that is. If you knew the proper phrase for what you were trying to say, then I could believe you knew what you meant. I presume you are referring to Special Relativity and General Relativity. I know you are tempted to put the word Theory in front of those phrases, just as you did with evolution, because it was written that way at one time. Those phrases have been tested over and over and over by the brightest minds on earth and have never been proven wrong, not even once. They've always been proven correct. They are fact, not theory. With these, and radio-active dating, you (and a couple billion other people) would know that the earth is more than 3,000 years old, and you would know that earth took far more than a few days to create.
You believe that global warming is based on "lots of assumptions/faith", to use your own words. I don't believe you meant that in the literal sense. I think you just meant that with respect to the current warming cycle and its causes. Am I correct on that? Or are you denying there ever were ice ages, or denying that dinosaur bones have been found near the poles, or that there were life Orders destroyed and created through those events?
Every bit of knowledge, no matter how small, starts as theory. Once these theories pass the requisite scientific tests, they become fact. It is foolish to mock such things, and even evolution, simply because they were once theory.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
