Evolution vs Creationism

My opponent argues that the Theory of Evolution is unrealistic because it "fails to explain the origins of matter and the laws of physics in the first place," and because humans have never physically observed evolution. My opponent continues to explain that Creationism is the more realistic alternative because there are things that "exist for no particular reason of survival, but enjoyment only," and because the universe cannot conceivably be 13.6 billion years according to my opponent.Firstly, I would like to address my opponent's first point against evolution: the belief that it "fails to explain the origins of matter and the laws of physics in the first place." My opponent argues that, because creationism explains how the world began and not the Theory of Evolution, creationism is more logical. The Theory of Evolution, by no means, attempts to explain how the world began. Instead, it is an explanation for how animals and humans came to be about. Additionally, while creationism provides an easy, simple answer for how we and the world began, does it have any logical or scientific support? While my opponent has provided a number of sources, eight in fact, my opponent fails to provide any support or evidence for creationism.My opponent does provide a good point against evolution by asking the "apologist evolutionists" and the audience where life would've originated in accordance to the Theory of Evolution, and so I shall take some time to address this point:Prebiotic molecules are molecules composed of hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen. They are believed to be the chemical and environmental precursors of organic life [1][2]. Prebiotic molecules are found in meteorites [3]. Assuming that the Earth was hit by meteorites millions, even billions, of years ago, we can assume that some prebiotic molecules landed on Earth. As I previously stated, prebiotic molecules contain the four elements, nitrogen, hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen, capable of synthesizing amino acids, carbohydrates, nucleic acids and other key compounds for life. Prebiotic molecules can create organic molecules such as cells and amino acids through abiotic synthesis. Abiotic synthesis can be demonstrated through the famous Miller-Urey Experiment. The Miller-Urey Experiment was an experiment conducted by biochemists, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey. The experiment showed that several organic compounds could be formed spontaneously by simulating the conditions of Earth's early atmosphere. In the website, Windows to the Universe, the experiment is described as "an apparatus which held a mix of gases similar to those found in Earth's early atmosphere over a pool of water, representing Earth's early ocean. Electrodes delivered an electric current, simulating lightning, into the gas-filled chamber. After allowing the experiment to run for one week, they analyzed the contents of the liquid pool. They found that several organic amino acids had formed spontaneously from inorganic raw materials. These molecules collected together in the pool of water to form coacervates," [4]. The Miller-Urey Experiment demonstrated that substances, such as prebiotic molecules, had the potential to create organic life, given the conditions on Earth's early atmosphere.My opponent's second argument against evolution is mere criticism and explaining that evolution is "improbable" because of author , philosopher and Christian apologist, suggests that "if you sat a million monkeys at a million typewriters for a million years, one of them would eventually type out all of Hamlet by chance. But when we find the text of Hamlet, we don't wonder whether it came from chance and monkeys. Why then does the atheist use that incredibly improbable explanation for the universe? Clearly, because it is his only chance of remaining an atheist. At this point we need a psychological explanation of the atheist rather than a logical explanation of the universe. We have a logical explanation of the universe, but the atheist does not like it. It's called God." However, though Kreeft is a famous and experienced apologist and author, his logic is fallible and unfounded. Here is an example of how Kreeft's arguments are baseless and scientifically wrong: http://www.patheos.com...My opponent's "reasons for Creation" is the belief that things that "exist for no particular reason of survival" are meant for our "enjoyment," and the age of the universe. I ask my opponent and audience, what do weeds and poison ivy do for us? Do they "look pretty?" Do they assist our survival? Why do hostile creatures like poisonous snakes bite us and try to kill us? For our "enjoyment?" My opponent fails to provide substantial reasoning for his argument. Additionally, my opponent focuses on how the world was created, failing to address the central topic: how was life created on Earth.Sources:[1] http://study.com...;[2] http://www.agenciasinc.es...;[3] https://www.merriam-webster.com...;[4] http://www.windows2universe.org...;