Evolution vs Creationism

I am approaching this debate using science to disprove a lack of science. I have studied science for many years, I was a student of natural resources, forestry, biology, animal and plant science, so your accusations are invalid. I have a good grasp of both creation and science of which I believe coincide more then they contradict one another. Firstly I would like to once again open by stating that there are absolutely no fossil records to support a transitional period of evolution. I hope you can address this in the next debate session. I would like to touch on dating systems as well as scientific laws, all of which can be used to disprove evolution as a factual science. The radiometric methods which are used to date the age of the earth, strata and fossil records are extremely questionable. The particular methods used are not in any way absolute, mainly because the rates fluctuate , and more often then not the methods used to date geological stratum fail to produce similar dates. In fact the dates can be off by literally hundreds of millions of years. This system of dating cannot give an accurate age of the earth which is required to prove the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution must fulfill the time requirement in order for this theory to ever be taken as factual and the dating methods are so varied that one cannot give an absolute on this matter. Due to the use and application of modern science in relation to dating methods we now have a better grasp on previous dating methods and thus the theory of evolution has been put through the blender. Carbon-14 has also been found to be a terrible dating source. Carbon 14 only has a lifespan into the thousands of years and therefore cannot adequately estimate the age of rocks and fossils that are supposed to be hundreds of millions of years old. In order for the theory of evolution to be remotely plausible it must fulfill an extremely old earth crieria. There is also new evidence from the University of Montana which indicates that red blood cells have been extracted from within preserved soft tissue of a T Rex leg bone. The life span of red blood cells is also only in the thousands of years. How can science prove something that contradicts science? There are a host of guidelines, applications and laws that a theory must follow in order to even be considered as factual. The theory of evolution breaks two significant laws and therefore should be deemed as a shameful representative of science. This theory fails to provide the evidence required to ever be taught as factual. The first law the theory of evolution breaks is Bio genesis. Bio genesis is a law that specifically deals with the production of living organisms. This law specifically states that living organisms can only come from other living organisms in a process known as reproduction. The law of bio genesis completely contradicts the idea that life could arise from inanimate matter as suggested by a spontaneous generation theory. This law has been through the ringer and thus the applications have proven it to be a factual law of science, unlike abiogenesis which is a contradictory hypothesis to other laws of science. Secondly, we have the laws of Thermodynamics which also contradict both evolution and a big bang theory. The first law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but that it can be transferred from one form to another. In my previous post you replied to this issue by suggesting this only applies to a closed system. I would like you to state scientific proof that supports the theory of an open system. I cannot fathom the idea of so many flaws, especially flaws that do not bear the burden of proof. Like I have stated before, there is no evidence supporting that any new creation has arisen from simple matter to highly complex organization, which brings me to the Second law of Thermodynamics. This law states that all forms of usable energy in the Universe break down in time. You cannot get order out of chaos. There has never been one case in history where something has come more orderly, in fact it is just the opposite. The effects of usable energy decaying through time are evident in all forms of living and non living objects. Humans age, decay, and fall apart. Please give me one example of something orderly that has come out of chaos spontaneously. If we left the destruction o Katrina as is, would we eventually get a functional city? The answer is absolutely No, because order does not come from chaos.