creatioism better explains the universe than theory of evolution

To start off, my opponent's definition of evolution is flaws in itself. I would like him to shown specifically where either Darwin or Professor Dawkins ever claims that "nature selects randomly" who will evolve. According to the definition of natural selection it is, "A process in nature in which organisms possessing certain genotypic characteristics that make them better adjusted to an environment tend to survive, reproduce, increase in number or frequency, and therefore, are able to transmit and perpetuate their essential genotypic qualities to succeeding generations."[1] It is not a random event, but a tendency for those best suited to their environment to survive longer and reproduce, thus passing those genes on whereas those not suited for their environment are less likely to reproduce and pass their genes on. Natural selection is a tendency, not a purposeful event.Contention: Artificially manipulating genes is hard for us intelligent, sentient, and overall purposeful beings to accomplish. Blind natural processes therefore cannot do it. As I showed before, natural selection is not nature randomly 'choosing' some to survive and then manipulating their genes. Natural selection means that if one is suited to their environment, for instance a tiger having an extra good sense of smell, they are more likely to survive longer and reproduce then another tiger in the same environment with a dull sense of smell. This is not guaranteed but it is a tendency. When these animals survive, they pass along their genes to their progeny, thus passing along the genes which helped them to survive into the succeeding gene pool. If a sharp sense of smell continues to be helpful as an aid to survival, it will continue to be passed down, eventually beating out the genes for a dull sense of smell. In this way, the majority of the population in succeeding generations will have sharper senses of smell and would have evolved via completely natural processes.Whether it is easy or hard for humans to replicate this process is irrelevant completely. Natural selection is a process whereby over generations and generations of those with superior traits surviving pass those genes into the succeeding gene pool. Human beings trying to alter types of genes is beside the point! It's a completely different type of process. Surely my opponent would not discard the thought that the water cycle is a wholly natural process whereby water is supplemented to different types of niches in different forms and that because it would require effort on the part of humans to replicate the act, it cannot be done naturally.Conclusion: An entity, creator, "hugely advanced in technology and intelligence" would be needed to consciously evolve living organisms through lack of a functioning natural process.Now as I have already shown, this can be done completely naturally. This completely destroys the need for an intelligent creator and thus adding it in to our theory is not only unnecessary but intellectually dishonest. It is based on faulty assumptions already disproven over and over. It also runs into the problem of being at odds with my opponent's first argument. He claimed that because no organism could evolve naturally over time, an intelligent creator is needed to guide evolution. However how did aforementioned creator come to be? Did it evolve out of natural processes, was it created by an even more advanced creator, or is it eternal? If it be the first then my opponent has conceded, if it be the second than my opponent's argument falls into infinite regress, and if it be the third than my opponent's explanation surely has more faults and errors than any of the alleged issues he brings with unguided natural selection.[1] http://www.biology-online.org...;