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

Rebuttals1) "Are you implying evolution is falsified or the laws of thermodynamics?"No; I am implying that IF evolution violates scientific laws (Although I believe it doesn't)(Seeing as it involves science; Originating from single-cellular organisms, evolving overtime, along with genes), it is then proven false."Also I am not sure what your argument about an exploding barrel proves. Could you elaborate?"Alright.Say, there is a barrel. Alright? Around it are balls (Definitely not mine). So, it explodes. The balls then are no longer in their locations. However, I can grab the balls and return them to their original locations."From what I could see you are impaling that a person or thing put the balls into a specific order which would be an argument for intelligent design, or creationism."We can debate this on another topic. Why instead? This is a debate about whether or not evolution is a more viable theory than creationism REGARDING HOW WE CAME TO BE.2) "Also not all soft body things decay. There are plenty of fossils of plants out there[1]."Yes. There, indeed, are plenty of fossils of plants. But, you know why? Because, there were no decomposers there yet. Unless it contains something, overtime, it can rot; Deteriorate, from the lack of resources for survival.3) "Actually we do. Not one animal has been observed evolving into a new species. If there is one that we watched please point it out."Nope.There IS NO evidence; The lack of evidence for a side (This premise applies to SOME cases, like this one) doesn't imply its opposite. Like said, my friend showed me a documentary of a scientist Who both discovered and afterwards, recorded an ape evolving, along with its genes.4) "The fact that I am trying to illiterate is that how many generations of off springs is it going to take for that one cell to mutate into the 16 million+ different species that are currently known to exist. That question I asked just re illustrates this point. How many different mutations will it take for the original cell to get to the point of a tree or a human?"It probably was a very long period of evolution, arising from a single-cellular organism. However, AS AN EVOLUTIONIST, I believe that there was enough time for the evolution (According to the fossil record). And then afterwards, through sexual intercourse, their sperms joined together, and produced more, thus the population grows.Observation"Whatever you want as long as you acknowledge this is a false fact."...I won't acknowledge WHAT I HAVE EXPERIENCED false; That's quite absurd.Fossil evidence"Please see the argument above regarding the time it would take based solely on random mutations."Alright.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. So, according to that, we can conclude that the period of times of mutation are actually not TOO long.Noah's ark"I am not arguing biblical creationism."Alright. Argument dropped.I await my opponent's next set of arguments.