Evolution is more viable than creationism

Before I proceed with my rebuttal, I think it's important to define 'viable' in order to determine what we must judge viability by. Viable: Capable of working successfully; feasible. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... This means that even if evolution works, my opponent has to prove that Creationism itself is not as capable of working successfully as evolution. My opponent cannot simply prove that evolution is feasible but must directly show how Creationism is less feasible to win this debate. I shall now commence my rebuttals in a (c)ontention and (r)ebuttal style of debate. C: I will use horses, zebras deer, moose and donkeys as an example. The build of those three animals are very similar in their physical build because they both descended from the common ancestor. They are of the same build because when organisms adapt and evolve to fit their environment, they keep the same build. R: This only proves that evolution is feasible, it has absolutely no relation to the feasibility of Creationism. C: You can see in zebra stripes, they adapted to fit their environment but kept the same build as the common ancestor. R: No you cannot. All you see is that it's similar to another animal that was supposedly created, or supposedly existed. This is not seen int he 'stripes' at all. Why on Earth would the stripes of a Zebra, who do not live in a black and white world, be a sign of evolution? It only makes them easier to see for predators. C: You may ask why moose and deer have antlers, but zebras and horses don't. You see, zebras and horses live in large herds, whilst moose and deer do not. When living in large herds you have protection against enemies and predators, whilst living in small packs, such as the deer, there is no protection with numbers, so the deer evolved antlers to protect themselves. R: First of all, according to evolutionists, moose are simply members of the deer family "Cervidae".[http://bit.ly...] While the moose is a solitary animal, the reindeer, caribou and elk are all severely herd-prone animals. The antlers are actually used to fight each other, rather than any other 'predator'. In actual fact,horses are far more solitary animals, it's why they like to sleep in stables on their own. C: Insects can be used as another example, they all have six legs, an abdomen, thorax and (some) wings. They all have these same things because they descended from a common ancestor. R: Then why did they kill the ancestor off? Surely, the young would grow to protect their family from being hurt by the freaky mutants that were evolving into a new species. C: From what I know (correct me if I am wrong), creationist believe that the Earth was created 4000-6000 years ago, and in the beginning, all of the animals of the world were created. R: You are, indeed, wrong. Creationists have a cult, within them, named "Young Earth Creationists". These are the ones who believe that the Earth is only 10,000 years old (still not as young as you make it out to be). Creationists make no such claim. The time-frame of the bible isn't clear and this is likely due to misinterpretation of the wording of time in Hebrew to English. [http://www.godandscience.org...]. The Bible didn't ever say how old the Earth was, this is a misinterpretation of some translators. C: Then a big flood happened and all of the animals, except two of every species of animals that would sail on an arc. I would like to bring up the fact that scientists estimate that 99% of the animals that have existed are now extinct, and that other 1% is somewhat 5 million species. So if 2 of every animals were saved, that means 10 million animals were out on the boat. I simply do not understand how 10 million animals could fit on a boat this size. R: You don't understand that god was protecting the Ark. The Ark was being supernaturally protected and expanded on the inside by God. No laws of science apply because God was the one who formed the laws of science in the first place, according to religion. He is welcome to rewrite them for the Ark as he wished. The Ark has no physical bounds and there is no reason to think that God couldn't have also shrunk the animals as they entered the Ark, as opposed to expanding the Ark itself. There is nothing about the physical size of everything in relation to the animals on the Ark and there is no reason to assume that God would be unable to rewrite the laws of physics and biology for the sake of flooding the world. I shall now explain Creationism and highlight the limitations of science and why they indicate the feasibility of Creationism being fairly high indeed. Creationism refers to the belief that the universe and everything in it were specially created by God through magic, rather than naturalistic means.[http://rationalwiki.org...] Now, this may seem stupid to assume because 'magic' supposedly does not exist but let me ask you this: (1) How can a blob of bacterium evolve into an eye capable of sight? "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." (Darwin 1872) [Huse, Scott. 1996. The Collapse of Evolution. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, p. 73.] (2) How on Earth did we evolve from non-sentient blobs of matter into conscious creatures capable of free will? "The highest possible stage in moral culture is when we recognize that we ought to control our thoughts." " Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871 (3) If evolution really is true then why haven't all of the same type of creature killed off all of the similar type within the same area? For example, why haven't chimps killed humans or the reverse, or why haven't donkeys killed horses? I conclude that evolution is not more viable than creationism.