Science definitively proves Creationism to be factual

While I am aware that the burden of proof rests solely on my shoulders, I will say that, as I mentioned in the comments, the point of my thesis hadn't correctly come across. I had assumed that it was stipulated that Science in of itself is truly capable of proving much of anything with 100% certianity, thus "definitively" proving Creationism would mean showing that the bulk of current scientific evidence supports Creationism over the alternative. In the same vein, it is a fact that the world was either created by a supernatural force, or it wasn't. This is a simple argument, the answer of which can only have one outcome, one being true, the other false. As there is no truly direct way of proving that a supernatural force exists (you can't physically measure God), the goal of my arguments must be to show that the bulk of evidence suggests that Macroevolution is false, only allowing for, and proving, that a supernatural force created our world. Now that we have that out of the way, I shall rebut your points as you did mine, in the same order:1. "Nature creates life on a regular basis" The definition of "nature" in this context has not been stipulated yet. I used it to mean an unguided force which Evolutionists believe created life, or random chance. If you observe the entirety of the Stanley Miller experiment, you will find that while he did, in fact, produce many of the raw materials needed to sustain life, he also failed to produce several key amino acids, and also produced many chemicals which inhibit the beginning of life. Afterwards, many people attempted many experiments designed to create the aformentioned key acids, to no avail. So, I pose the question again (this time a bit more clearly): How can random chance create something we humans, an intelligent and capable force, are incapable of? I have not adressed one rather important part of this point, that humans can "create" life through procreation. This is not really a valid argument, as it is not chance so much as mechanisms of the body that "create" more life. 2. The sheer diversity of the life on Earth is, I don't believe, possible through natural selection alone, but as I have no statistical evidence to support this idea, it remains only an opinion and thus pointless to argue over, so I'll drop it. Adressing your second point, what I meant by "...just happen to consume oxygen/carbon dioxide and produce the other..." was how did we adapt, through sheer chance, the ability to sustain ourselves through, among other forms of sustenance, consuming oxygen and in turn producing carbon dioxide? How can an entire species suddenly develop such a complicated ability? As for symbiotes, I was specifically referring to two seperate species mutually dependent on one another for survival. I don't think that birds ridding hippos of insects is essential for survival. A good example of what I'm talking about is termites and the (seperate) bacteria that reside within them, that allow them to digest cellulose. This is a clear example of two species who are mutually dependent on one another for survival (not merely convenence); termites benefit greatly from the ability to burrow through wood, and the bacteria are ensured a supply of sustenance. How could these two seperate life forms simply "evolve" with individual inefficiencies, in the same relative location, at the exact same time, solely for the purpose of saving one another from extinction? 3. Interesting rebuttal, I've never actually heard of more simple light-sensing organs. Although, how a simple organ that can merely detect photons can slowly develop into a human eye, which has a lense with an alterable shape to alter the focus point, 130 million light-sensitive rods and cones, and can do both in less than a billionth of a second is beyond me. One more thing I feel I must adress on this particular area, is, supposing that something as complex as the eye could come into being through Evolution, how can you explain the peculiar human brain? The human brain hardly resembles the brain of any other living creature, as it's vastly more complex. Supposing that humans Evolved into their current state, why aren't there other creatures with similar attributes? If developing a large, complex brain capable of conciousness provides such a huge survival advantage (which, in fact, it does), then where are all of the other intelligent races developing similar advantages? Why are humas so unique in this area? We're clearly the dominant species of this planet, so where are the competitors?4. If "group survival" as you put it, is so ingrained in our psychology, than donating resources to less capable people still doesn't make sense. Take, for example, a disabled veteran. Why would we share our resources with this person? It couldn't possibly aid any "group survival", as such a person would (depending on the extent of their disability) be an overall drain on a community, not contributing anything meaningful in the way of survival, while simltaniously draining resources. Yet we still provide them with resources, and feel good doing so. How does this stem from Evolution? It's totally inimical to survival.Before I close up my argument, I'd also like to adress a few things:First off, there is a major difference between evolution and Evolution (micro- and macro- respectively). "evolution", otherwise known as adaptation/gene variablity is an irrefutible fact. This word covers things such as eye/skin color, and the beak differences of finches that Darwin was so fond of. Macro-Evolution, on the other hand, is a theory, which by it's nature is controversial and subject to change. The reason I bring this up is because it's extremely important to clarify which you're using, due to the confusion and misunderstanding it may cause.Your argument that Religion and Evolution (macro-, I assume you mean) are not mutually exclusive. This, taken at face value, can be true. "Religion" is a very broad topic, and if you wanted, you could religiously believe in Darwinian Evolution (something I find many do). If, by "Religion" you meant Theism, that's where we start having issues. Deism, the belief that a supernatural force created the universe, but then left it to develop itself based on the laws that that force set in motion is consistent with Darwinian Evolution. However, this runs counter to all Monotheistic Religions (I don't know much about specific Polytheistic Religions, but I'm fairly certain that they're incapable of accepting Deism as well), due to the fact that we Christians believe that God (the supernatural force that created the universe) plays an active role in our world. If the Catholic Church has accepted Darwinian Evolution as consistent with their beliefs, they've clearly abandoned Biblical truths.Last of all, to answer your question, in this specific debate the particular Deity to which I'm referring is irrelevant, I'm only making the claim that science supports a supernatural force over an unguided one created our universe. The reason for this is purely for simplicity, as the particular kind of creation has nothing to add to the overall argument, and it would significantly complicate things, unnecessarily. If you wish to debate the specifics of Creationism, I'd be glad to do so in the future.