Evolution is more viable than creationism

Thank you for replying To begin my argument, I will be talking on the topic of similarities between organisms, in the multicellular scale I will use horses, zebras deer, moose and donkeys as an example. The build of those three animals are very similar in their physical build because they both descended from the common ancestor. They are of the same build because when organisms adapt and evolve to fit their environment, they keep the same build. You can see in zebra stripes, they adapted to fit their environment but kept the same build as the common ancestor. But you may ask why moose and deer have antlers, but zebras and horses don't. You see, zebras and horses live in large herds, whilst moose and deer do not. When living in large herds you have protection against enemies and predators, whilst living in small packs, such as the deer, there is no protection with numbers, so the deer evolved antlers to protect themselves. Insects can be used as another example, they all have six legs, an abdomen, thorax and (some) wings. They all have these same things because they descended from a common ancestor. I can obviously go on about everything, birds, reptiles, mammals etc. From what I know (correct me if I am wrong), creationist believe that the Earth was created 4000-6000 years ago, and in the beginning, all of the animals of the world were created. Then a big flood happened and all of the animals, except two of every species of animals that would sail on an arc. I would like to bring up the fact that scientists estimate that 99% of the animals that have existed are now extinct, and that other 1% is somewhat 5 million species. So if 2 of every animals were saved, that means 10 million animals were out on the boat. I simply do not understand how 10 million animals could fit on a boat this size (http://tinyurl.com...). In the image, it is compared to many ships throughout the generations. The largest ship, the queen marry II, could not fit a million humans, let alone 10 million animals. AGE OF THE EARTH When creationists say the earth is 6000 years old, it can be easily contradicted by radioactive carbon dating, measuring the ice layers in the ice caps and log rings in trees that are 9000 years old. Radioactive carbon dating dates works with comparing three isotopes of carbon within the atmosphere (I'll keep it brief, I won't go into a chemistry lesson). All isotopes of an element have a half life, which is the amount of time it takes for an element to decay by half. there are 3 different isotopes of carbon, all with extra neutrons to protons increasing or decreasing the mass. C-12 and C-13 are both stable isotopes of Carbon, whilst C-14 is the most radioactive due to being the heaviest isotope. Long story short, chemists can measure the half life of C-14, the half-life measured measures around to 10000 years, surpassing the 6000 year rules creationists have. Ice layers are determined by the winter-summer cycle, with snow and ice building up every season (it has been observed!) This means there are more than 10000 layers of the summer-winter cycle, which means 10000 or more years. So if creationists are correct, there would of needed to be 160 winter-summer cycles in one year... not possible. Trees create rings over certain periods of time, using this information, we can determine the age of the tree. The oldest tree to date is somewhere in California, dating back to 9000-10000 years. So how come the tree is that old if it wasn't even created! I await my opponents answer, and ask him to give me scientific evidence of creationism, not from the bible. And to contradict my points of measuring the age of the earth.