Science definitively proves Creationism to be factual

Firstly, I think that this is quite obvious, but I'd like to point it out in order to avoid future confusion: Burden of proof rests squarely on my opponent's shoulders, as they are making the claims. Furthermore, they are claiming a few things here, rather than just one. 1- Creationism is definitely factual. 2- Science definitely can and does prove something to be factual. 3- Science definitely proves Creationism to be factual (as per the title). I only need to show that there is insufficient evidence to assume any number of these claims as fact beyond a reasonable doubt, even though, if I wish, I could go on to argue further. That is my prerogative in this instance. I will address my opponent's points systematically. 1- " The argument that 'nature' has the power to create life is ludicrous. " Nature creates life on a regular basis. Nature is full of life, and living organisms reproduce, so I don't see how nature can't create life. I have a feeling that you may be referring to inorganic nature, but in case you weren't, I addressed the statement from this angle as well. Since you tie this to the idea that humans can't synthesize the components needed for life, I will address that tie directly. You say that humans have not synthesized and cannot synthesize the compounds necessary for life. This is untrue. Stanley Miller, a doctoral student at the University of Chicago, synthesized amino acids, a vital component for life and the second-most prevalent materials in the human body (after water), by simulating in a laboratory setting the conditions and substances likely to have been found on Earth at the time that terrestrial life was believed to have begun. (1) Amino acids exist in the forms of proteins and other substances. 2- ". .. why do we have such a diversity of life on Earth? " The diversity exists because of evolution. I see no argument against evolution in this instance, and so I see no need to provide further explanation here. "Why do we just happen to consume oxygen to remain alive. .. " We don't just happen to. Oxygen, as I understand it, is corrosive in nature. It is needed to break down glucose that it may be turned into substances that the body can use. A by product of this is carbon dioxide, which we breathe out. Also, I really don't see how the breathing of oxygen validates creationism in any way. Is there something divine associated with oxygen? You'll have to specify why oxygen in particular is associated with the alleged factual nature of creationism. ". .. why do plants just happen to consume carbon dioxide, and in turn produce oxygen? " Insert the same type of rebuttal as the oxygen one immediately above. "Furthermore, why do symbiotes exist? .. . How can two mutually dependant species "evolve" at the same time, just in time to save one another from extinction? " Symbiotes don't necessarily save each other from extinction. I'll answer this point as well as the question regarding how they evolved with an example:There is a small bird that eats insects off of the backs of either rhinos or hippos. I forget which (it might have been both), so I'll just say rhinos for the purpose of this example. Many birds eat insects. At some point, an insect-eating bird noticed that a rhino had insects on its back, and so, naturally wanting to eat the insects, landed on the back of the rhinoceros and began eating the insects off of its back. The back of a rhinoceros is a good place for the bird to find insects (particularly mosquitoes and ticks), and is a relatively safe spot as well, as the rhino will likely frighten off some potential predators. The rhino also benefits, because it is now less likely to get insect-caused diseases. The birds that adopted this habit thrived because of how nutritionally lucrative and how relatively safe it was, and their descendants adopted this trait as well, eventually forming a group of birds that found a niche and did this almost exclusively. Likewise, the rhinos that did not throw off the birds benefited and out-reproduced those that did throw off the birds, because they were far less likely to die from disease. That is how one symbiosis likely happened. Now, addressing your statement on extinction, rhinos and these birds probably wouldn't have gone extinct had they not found this partnership. Or at least, not for that reason. Both were likely doing fine prior to it. It's just that they're doing even better now. 3- "How can Evolutionists explain the presence of such irreducibly complex organs as the eye? " That's actually a tough one, and there are a number of theories on it. Darwin actually thought that the original "eye" may have been a simple optic nerve capable of sensing photons in some form. As the ability to "see" became a greater and greater advantage, the capacity to "see" became of greater and greater magnitude. Regardless of how the eye came into being, though, we can see its evolution from basic light-sensors to more complex eyes such as our own. Amoebas, which are single cell particles, actually have very primitive eyes, or "eyespots. " 4- "Why do humans have emotions such as anger and compassion? Anger blinds us to reason, and this is counter to survival. Compassion (true compassion, by the way) is utterly selfless, thus also counter to survival. " Anger gives us the will and strength to try to take what's our when we feel that we're being treated unfairly. In a primitive world without laws, this was key to survival. Push-over cavemen could not survive in such a hard world. Compassion is less about individual survival and more about group survival. As far as the species is concerned, Spock was right when he said that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. " "By the same note, why do we feel better when we donate resources to charity? It can't bring us any survival benefit (in fact, we're losing resources, so it actively harms our survival), so why does it exist? " See what I said regarding compassion. There are a few more things that I'd like to point out here. As always, my arguments here may or may not be indicative of my beliefs. Aside from that I believe in evolution, I choose to keep those private. Religion and evolution are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the Catholic Church officially blessed the concept of evolution decades ago. You seem to be arguing more against the validity of evolution than for the validity of creationism. You provided plenty of arguments as to why evolution was isn't correct but provided none as to why creationism in specific is. There are plenty of non-evolution alternatives to life on Earth. Also, which creationism are you talking about? Judeo-Christian? Hindu? etc. Sources: 1- . http://www.pbs.org...;