Creationism is false.

Just establishing, all I need to prove is that "It is not known that creationism is false", because you've made the positive claim that it is. Also, disclaimer, I do not necessarily believe that man has no primate ancestry. I am taking the strongest biblical creation position because Pro essentially asked that I do so. Let's further define our terms:Evolution: The unintelligent (involving no interference by a being possessed of libertarian free will in contravention of normal operation of biology) selection of traits that enhance survivability by the death of those who do not possess them, and against those traits whose possession worsened survivability by the death of those who possessed them."as described in Genesis": Genesis 1 is a heavenly, or spiritual creation. What else could it be, when God is counting by days before ever there was a "morning" or an "evening"? And what of Genesis 2:4-5 "4. These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew."If the plant`s not in the earth, where is it?As a consequence of this definition, only one species along the Homo chain needs to have originated in a manner highly dissimilar to the rest of life, as that would involve the evolution-breaking interference described above. With our terms so defined, let`s consider the arguments.Premise 1: I don't have a real objection, more a curiosity. I wasn't able to turn up an answer on the research I did, but how did species ever divide/change chromosomes, anyhow? Polar bears and grizzly bears can produce fertile offspring, having similar chromosome numbers, while horses and donkeys cannot. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'd actually like to know how it could be that in a P. Fish colony with all members having 30 chromosomes, the P. mutated NewFish, with 29 chromosome pairs, would ever be able to create a new P. NewFish population, seeing as he has only P. Fish to mate with?Premise 2: Does not follow. If I, the divine engineer, have discovered a genetic pattern that reliably results in bipedal mammals with primate features (either humans or apes first), why would I change it? It seems like I would only change it to the smallest degree to ensure no fertile offspring, and otherwise leave it be, so that humans resembling apes is no more compelling evidence of descent than knights and samurai both using armor means that one copied the other. Also, does not follow that no libertarian agency was availing of supernatural power outside of the normal biological order in working the dramatic and rapid transformation from ape to human. Premise 3: If premise 2 were true, would be true. Premise 4: Epistemic nitpicking, lots of things that appear to be true can, upon further examination, not be true, but I understand your point. Premise 5: If 3 and 4 are true, is true.Premise 6: Does follow from the definition of creationism Answer to the question to the contender:I actually don't believe in biblical infallibility, so if some ancient scribe stuck that in there, I wouldn`t necessarily believe it. But, from an infallibilist perspective, you've proposed a nonsensical situation. It is as if you asked someone who believed that all bachelors were unmarried what his perspective would be if there was conclusively proven the existence off a man who by some means was a bachelor whilst married. A married bachelor is inconceivable, and from the perspective of the infallibilists, the Bible stating an incorrect fact is also inconceivable.