Creationism is false.

Well, I had hoped from your coherent, cool-headed, first argument that you'd be reasonable and not impassioned about the subject. Clearly I was wrong. "If it can't be made up (P), then non-Christian religious texts can't be (Q), either, and Christianity isn't the only true religion." Q simply does not follow from P."You basically seem to be arguing:Premise a) God would not make humans evolve from nonhuman apes."It follows from my definition of evolution that if a being possessed with libertarian free will had to intervene to "make" a result, it is not evolution. Why are you questioning this premise, anyway? Your whole case rides on the fact that divine agency and evolution are opposed. "1. Evolution usually only does the same thing once."What does this have to do with anything? "2. I think it took millions of years for nonhuman apes to become human."At best, it took one million years. The most difficult part to explain for natural process evolution is Homo Sapiens tremendous capacity for abstract thought. Homo erectus, the second on the chain, does not seem to have been nearly so gifted. Homo Sapiens himself went from stone-age hunter gathering to Greek philosophy in only ~200,000 years. There are several unfalsiable theories as to why humans would develop through natural selection a stupendous capacity for thought totally beyond what could be beneficial for survival.But since you insist I prove creationism, you must permit we go beyond the primate origins of man, and go to the origin of all life. You can make all sorts of reasonable sounding conjectures to explain why humans are so superior to the rest of animals in terms of their intelligence and nobody can prove you wrong, but what about the origin for life? RNA, the essential storage unit of genetic information, is both very complex, and very unstable. Ribose, its backbone, lasts all of 73 mins (half life) in boiling water.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...Cytosine, a component of RNA, is also highly unlikely to have formed in primordial conditions:http://www.pnas.org..."To favor cytosine formation, reactant concentrations are required that are implausible in a natural setting. Furthermore, cytosine is consumed by deamination (the half-life for deamination at 25°C is ≈340 yr) and other reactions. No reactions have been described thus far that would produce cytosine, even in a specialized local setting, at a rate sufficient to compensate for its decomposition. On the basis of this evidence, it appears quite unlikely that cytosine played a role in the origin of life."Likewise, adenine is also unlikely to have formed in prebiotic conditions:https://link.springer.com..." (1) Adenine synthesis requires HCN concentrations of at least 0.01 M. Such concentrations would be expected only in unique circumstances on the early Earth. Adenine yields are low in prebiotic simulations, and if a subsequent high-temperature hydrolysis step is omitted, the reported yield does not represent adenine itself, but 8-substituted adenines and other derivatives. (2) Adenine is susceptibile to hydrolysis (the half life for deamination at 37 °C, pH 7, is about 80 years), and to reaction with a variety of simple electrophiles, forming a multiplicity of products. Its accumulation would not be expected over a geological time scale, and its regioselective incorporation into a replicator appears implausible. (3) The adenine-uracil interaction, which involves two hydrogen bonds (rather than three, as in guanine-cytosine pairing) is weak and nonspecific. Pairing of adenine with many other partners has been observed with monomers, synthetic oligonucleotides and in RNA. The hydrogen-bonding properties of adenine appear inadequate for it to function in any specific recognition scheme under the chaotic conditions of a prebiotic soup."So you have to have RNA, which consists of the A-U base pair, G-C base pair, and its backbone Ribose (to say nothing of the proteins needed for synthesis), without either A, C, or Ribose! Not a single instance of life based upon another information carrier other than RNA exists. Not one. As if the case for abiogenesis weren`t intractable enough, not a single instance of any of its proposed alternatives has been found in nature, let alone life based on it! So there you have it, the "worst theory of the early evolution for life" (except all the others, the author is quick to add. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...). To adapt your structure:Premise 1: No life has been found based on any other nucleic acid (barring DNA, which needs RNA too, so that point is moot). Premise 2: If no life has ever been found without RNA, it is reasonable to believe that life could not have developed without RNA.Premise 3: Life developed from RNA. (From 2 and 1, and your "justify belief" premise) Premise 4: It is reasonable to believe prima facie (meaning, until proven otherwise) that which large numbers of persons of unimpeachable character tell us. (Support: Negation of this premise would lead to the collapse of law, business, science, and society as we now know it). Premise 5: As no theory for the origin of life has more scientific evidence than the other, barring those that propose RNA alternatives, which have plenty of evidence against, we should believe the one which seems prima facie to be true. (from 2, 4, and research)Premise 6: Martin Luther King Jr, Kurt Gödel, Renee Descartes, Immanuel Kant, George Washington, Sir Francis Bacon, Francis Collins, and hundreds of great minds, each being a person of unimpeachable character and upon some of whose work we base much of our understanding of everything, have all claimed sensory (the actual five senses, or else intuition) experience for the existence of the Christian God. Premise 7: It is reasonable to hold a prima facie belief in God (from 6). You asked if I somehow knew that God exists. Of course I do. I've had sensory experience, and I'll trust it until proven otherwise. My question to you is: If someone has had repeated sensory experiences with God, is that person justified in believing in God until proven otherwise?