Evolution is a more viable theory regarding our status (Existence) than Creationism

I have been busy so I feel that I did not do a good job at presenting my argument the first time, so I will try again. All of the same sources as above but plus a few more. Presentation 1) The second Law of Thermodynamics makes evolution impossible. The second law of thermodynamics states that states that energy and matter tends to go from order to chaos. Thus how could it be possible for life to exist if energy and matter go from order to disorder? Life requires order to flourish and evolution shows that life goes from simple to more and more complex. Would you not agree that the human anatomy and philology is a very well ordered and complex system? So saying that we evolved from a simple single cell and evolved into an incredibly complex and well ordered organism violates this law. You replied once “Seeing as evolution involves science (Physical science)(We originated from single-cellular organisms, overtime evolving, along with our genes), if it's proven to violate even a single scientific law, it is then, falsified.” In response let me ask you which is falsified thermodynamics or evolution. Latter on you use the analogy of a barrel full of balls that explode and balls go everywhere, and you go on to talk about how you can go back and re organize the balls to how you want them. This helps my argument. This explains how life could come about against the laws of thermodynamics. You are saying that someone somehow put those balls in to the specific order that is needed. Please tell me how this is evolution and not creationism. 2) Life appeared spontaneously. If you look at the fossil record complex life forms appear spontaneously where as the theory of evolutions suggests there were gradual changes to lead up to this complex life. Bacteria can leave fossils, plants can leave fossils, where are the fossils showing single cells leading up to complex plants and animals[1][2][3]? 3) All current plants and animals have not evolved since creation, outside of extinctions, and genetic variation in originally created species of plants and animals has only occurred within narrow limits. 4) Mutations and Natural selection would not be enough to divide species into completely different Kingdoms of animals. A lot of mutations are harmful rather than helpful[4][5]. Not to mention genetic mutations are extremely rare, estimates show that the rate of mutations that occur are at about 2.5x10^-8 mutations per nucleotide[6]. This number includes helpful and harmful mutations. Knowing this rate is it possible to think that mutations alone could have accounted for the diverse life forms that live on this planet? As newgeology.us puts it “Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance. That is physically impossible. To illustrate just how hopeless it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.). We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years. The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature[7].” 6) Single cells reproduce asexually, which means they make clones of themselves in order to reproduce[8]. This means that each cell is an exact coppy of the parent cell. How could life have evolved from a single cell if asexual reproduction produce an exact copy[9]? Rebuttals 1) You stated “scientists have actually observed (And some recorded and said documentaries were published) animals evolving into human (Thus that human originating as said animal).” Where? I have not heard of one animal that was observed to evolve into a human. This is a false fact unless you can provide information for it. Many scientist have hypothesized that man has evolved from apes but it has not been observed. 2) As addressed above there are many holes where there should not be. Along with that the fossil record goes against the second law of thermodynamics. 3) Grant you that we share a lot of DNA with apes. However we share 51% of our DNA with a fruit fly and we have nothing in common. 4) You are correct on all points regarding Noah’s Ark. Not going to argue that. The reason why I am not arguing this point is that Noah’s Ark has nothing to do with my argument. I completely agree with you that Noah’s Ark probably did not happen but at the same time Noah is not needed for Creation. [1] http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu... [2] http://news.nationalgeographic.com... [3] http://www.museum.state.il.us... [4] http://www.cod.edu... [5] http://news.softpedia.com... [6] http://www.genetics.org... [7] http://www.newgeology.us... [8] http://www.youtube.com... [9] http://www.youtube.com...