There is evidence for creationism.

There is no such thing as "cell theory". There is no scientific understanding that cells can only come from other cells. There are cells and most come from other cells. There's a good scientific understanding of how cells initially form. What you offer, however, is an argument from ignorance. It does not make for evidence. "Cells form this way, I don't know how else they could form... so God did it." -- That is not evidence. One could conclude fairies did it just as aptly; it is for this reason that arguments from ignorance are fallacies and sound reasoning. Further, your claims of "exceptions to scientific law" is a complete farce. The ideas of scientific laws is a mistake. Some things just don't happen and thus we attribute the idea that they well never happen or they only happen some specific way and we say that's the way they happen. It isn't that the 'law of gravity' is an unimpeachable requirement or legal construct, rather matter is attracted to matter and we know of no exceptions. So your first argument suffers from three overpowering objections: there is no cell theory, the argument is an argument from ignorance, and you are equivocating the idea of scientific laws. Your second argument is also flawed. First it is generally accepted that matter cannot be created or destroyed. However, matter and energy are interchangeable and spacetime is net negative as far as energy goes. It is entirely possible that the big bang happened without violating this principle as the universe would simply be a "rearranged" bit of net zero energy. 0 != 1... however 0 = 1 - 1. If the universe is net zero that doesn't exclude the possibility that the universe formed, while negating the need for this "spark of energy". This argument is also an argument from ignorance. "I don't know how this works, so God did it." You cannot conclude that your suggestion is the "only way" for this to occur. Beyond being unable to reach your conclusion due to the logical flaws involved the conclusion need not require omnipotence, perhaps a mildly powerful being did such a thing. Finally we are lacking a vital step in your argument, the need for the universe to have been formed. If, rather than resolve ourselves to unwarranted conclusions, we conclude that the universe never began than everything we have today is everything we've ever had or well ever have (in fact for the first argument you could also conclude eternal cells propagating from the infinite past). The scientific evidence is against this proposition, but one must clearly conclude that this conclusion is a more logical conclusion than yours. If matter can never be created or destroyed then all the matter and energy in the universe must be eternal. If you disagree with this statement then you have added another problem to your claims. Your argument suffers from infinite regress. If, as you say, God did it for a first mover. What did God? If the universe must have started by some logic then we must conclude that God started from a yet superior means. Any exception for God could similarly apply to the universe and negate the initial argument. Finally, allow me to add a more primary objection to your arguments... they are arguments! I asked for evidence. If I asked for a reason to believe the sun rose last Tuesday it would be one thing to argue about inertia and scientific theories about the rotation of the planet, it is quite another to actually show that the sun did rise on Tuesday via evidence. I say there is no evidence for creationism, and though if you had a flawless argument for the proposition I would be inclined to believe it, I cannot properly equate an argument with evidence. You have failed to offer a mildly cogent argument in favor of creationism. Further, arguments for creationism are not evidence in a very real sense. I can offer you a very detailed and impressive argument that by the sheer vastness of space there should be planets with life on them... however that isn't evidence in the least.