Evolution is less viable than Creationism

I will be negating said resolution (That Creationism is more viable than Evolution). Rebuttals1. "The universe and solar system were created spontaneously. We can prove this by the 1st and 2nd law of thermo dynamics. The 1st law of thermo dynamics simply states that energy can change forms however energy cannot be created or destroyed[1]. The 2nd Law of thermodynamics states the energy is going from order to disorder[2]. This would show that the universe could not have created its self or lasted as long as what evolutionist claim, if it had lasted this long the solar system would have depleted itself of usable energy by now[3]. "Said premises don't validly follow the conclusion that the Universe came into existence simultaneously, without a cause; It simply exposes Evolution's defiance of scientific laws. Indeed. According to the 1st law of thermodynamics, energy can neither be created, nor can it be destroyed. However, personally, I believed that there was an infinite (In size) Universe, which existed forever. This matter (Due to the coldness) fused. Condensed. All this matter was so compact. It was infinitestimally small, thus not violating THAT scientific law. Also, indeed. According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, everything tends toward disorder. There was a cataclysmic explosion. That matter, then, was distributed in all directions, thus becoming disorganized, thus not violating THAT scientific law either.2. "How could I argue creationism if I do not make the claim that Life appeared spontaneously? If you look at the fossil record you will notice that there are gaps and then all of a sudden complex life comes around[4][5][6]. How can you discredit an explanation as to why there are gaps in the fossil record? "Fossil records of 1 amongst many varieties of species are exceedingly rare, and only occur under specific conditions, and that the earliest multi-cellular life forms were all soft-bodied (And invertebrates) and thus left little to no trace as fossils for us to observe due to not having a bone that doesn't rot, unlike the body.3. "According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics would make it impossible for DNA and RNA to form. As stated earlier the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that energy and matter are headed to a state of chaos and disorder. How would a very well organized molecule such as DNA or RNA form knowing this law of thermodynamics? "How so? Because external forces caused matter to.4. "Mutations are just about always harmful in living organisms in the wild. With mutations being so rare is It really logical to think that it is possible for at least 16 millions different species to evolve based on a mere chance[7]? "Mutations are rarely OBSERVED! Scientists have observed (And some also recorded) animals evolving, along with its genes (As said in my presentations). (If you meant other animals doing so, please comprehend and reply to following argument)Unless, according to Evolution, there weren't 16 million different species, then the question is irrelevant. Otherwise:If animals rarely mutate other animals (Thus, not removing any kind), then don't all 16 million different species remain? PresentationObservationsScientists have actually observed (And some recorded and said documentaries were published) animals evolving into human (Thus that human originating as said animal). Fossil evidence In the fossil record: There are snapshots from the past in which, if arranged from oldest to earliest, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change overtime. The snapshots may be scattered in places and have bits missing, but that which we are left with clearly supports the claim that we originated from different animals, evolving overtime. Similarities between humans and related living organismsDuring and since Darwin was born, people have been studying animals. Scientists, lately, have been discovering that we humans share DNA with others as our former selves (Or at least some)(Monkeys)[1]. Noah's arkWood is very brittle. And having established that fact, how did the animals and Noah survive?1. According to the Bible, there were many animals on the ark. So, from how much the ark had to carry, it should have crashed, regardless of grip (Which makes the middle of the wood more susceptible/vulnerable (Synonyms) to breakage).2. So, those drops, flood striking, etc. should have annahilated the ark (Hence, wood). I await my opponent's set of arguments. Sources[1] . http://www.sciencedaily.com...