There is evidence for creationism.

First of all you comparing cell theory to a theory about humans existing is ridiculous for the sole reason that they are both absolutely true, and how you can degrade the cell theory like you have. read the next words closely CELL THEORY IS ONE OF THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS IN BIOLOGY, UNDERSTANDING CELLS AND LIFE IS EXPLAINED THROUGH CELL THEORY. all you have done to discredit the cell theory evidence is say one you don't like it and its ignorant (which i will get to later) 4.5 billion years ago the earth was a giant molten rock where there was NO LIFE again NO LIFE. you cannot argue or discredit cell theory it is scientific FACT. i don't need to side with any particular religion here but somewhere between 4.5 billion years ago and now cells appeared. It is now your turn to show some proof of how cells popped out of no where, if you can't that alone means victory for me. since you have failed to give any definitions we will assume mine are correct, proof is the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact. something that leaves only one option COMPELS ACCEPTANCE and thus is proof and thus is evidence. (by the way the fairies thing was your idea read your second post second paragraph second line your right it is very funny the first time i read it i laughed because it was so ludicrous) Secondly the explosion into matter argument. First off read the article before you start claiming this and that. this article actual strengthens the conservation of mass argument. yes matter and anti-matter cancel each other out, but WHY. Remember the Newton's first law, first your understanding of it is remedial at best. let me attempt to clarify inertia for you, though it can be applied to a ball being thrown it also states that you need a push for anything to happen and here is another place where you need to give proof tell me how particles can poof in and out of existence with no push or pull either way. and lastly on your whole net zero argument read the very very last paragraph "If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct" here is a little explanation on the levels of scientific laws and such, on the highest level there are laws, law are utterly indisputable no questions asked next are theories (i.e. cell theory) these are tested over and over and over if something is a theory it scientifically proves everything it says for the most part if something hasn't become law yet that means there is like on thing in it that either hasn't or cant be proven entirely. next are hypothesises which are basically pretty good ideas which have some good stuff going for them a few tests but that's about it. now your net zero is by its own text is a "admittedly speculative" speculative is theoretical rather than demonstrable your net zero admits that it is speculative and not only that but a hypothesis as well. so its basically null. (just something in the middle here its funny how my arguments are always ignorant when you either misconceive your own evidence or don't understand mine) once again you seem to think that evidence is only something that you consider truth and again you have not given a definition i have if you wanted to say evidence was something other than what i had set out at the very beginning you should have. There it is, you now must either disprove the certain, attempt to argue my arguments on a credible level, or keep complaining that my arguments are ignorant, uninformed, and keep calling them flawed to your own unstated terms and of course keep on attacking me personally, say my understanding of concepts, that you seem to not be able to connect to anything else, are inadequate. Name calling doesn't make your side look any better, it doesn't give anything to your integrity and it surly will not impress anyone judging this match. Check and mate.