Before something is evidence for your position, you have to have the best explanation for it going. The most you have done is to cite Halton Arp to try to knock some holes in the conventional idea of what the red shift means.
Alas for your limited exposure to the facts, Halton Arp's claims (that red-shifted objects are as close as non-redshifted ones) has been severely knocked about. As Physicist has explained to us on past threads, a spectroscopic phenomenon called the "Lyman-Alpha forest" allows an estimate of how many intermediate clouds of matter lie between a light emitter and the earth. Arp's star-quasar bridges are simple accidents of juxtaposition. The quasar of the "pair" inevitably has a Lyman-Alpha forest consistent with its redshift. That is, it has far more stuff in front of it absorbing and re-emitting the light.
That means you haven't made a dent in the accepted expanation of the redshift. That also means that the CDK version, coming attached to the mess that is CDK, fails the Occam's Razor test of being the simplest workable.
I've never seen the Second Law refuted on here yet.
The Second Law is right. Creatonist attempts to apply it to non-thermodynamic problems are wrong.
Your attempt to cram biological processes into "atomic" processes in order to make a point was senseless, since you know very well had anyone else tried that type of juggling of words you wouldn't let them get away with it.
Most of your bodily processes are powered by chemical reactions. There are two main types of such: ionic and covalent bonding. In ionic processes, an electron goes from orbiting nucleus A to orbiting nucleus B. Both nuclei are thus left out of electrical neutrality (i.e, "ionized"), although the total electrical charge of the world is conserved. In covalent processes, an electron's orbit is altered so that it orbits both nucleus A and nucleus B in some variation of a figure-8.
Both processes are pulled along by electrical forces and would presumably be speeded in a world in which every atomic particle including the electron has lower mass. Now, guess whose theory does something as silly as that. Don't make me go into Dolphin's "cdkconseq" page and show you where he admits as much (albeit ignoring the problems).
As far as you hearing about something lifting Adam off the earth I can just say very simple that I guess you heard wrong since he wasn't.
First prove it, then use it.
I'd say you are not dealing with the concrete objections I have to the CDK model. I did not impose CDK on Setterfield, Dolphin, and all the creationists such as you who have embraced it. Rather, you have waved it at me and said, "This is the real science and you people who believe the stuff about an old universe are fools!"
If your explanation is genuinely superior, I should be able to get answers to my questions on specifics. Seeing that part of CDK involves nuclear reactions taking place at about 11 million times the current speed, my first question was why Adam wasn't cooked as soon as he was created. That question had been asked often enough already that the CDKers anticipated it and described a complicated dance in which the mass of everything was tremendously lowered to keep the energy flux the same as now by the E = mc squared relation. But that, as Setterfield admits, means the photons are being redshifted and the sun isn't glowing in anything like the color it is now.
Having repeated my question yet again, I now ask you to note that "Adam could see" is inadequate. You have to explain why he could see. CDK is committed to those high reaction rates; they're absolutely integral to the theory. So you're cooking off a lot of fuel and making a lot of photons. If you redshift them, human eyes such as eyes are now cannot see them. If you don't redshift them, you cook Adam because there are so many of those photons and they have the same energy as solar photons now.
"Adam could see." Don't just say it, explain it. After all, you're trumpeting it as the real science.