Creationism is false.

To close: "Why shouldn't you accept the fact of evolution? Because it conflicts with your precious belief system? You'd sound like a tribesman saying that their gods must live atop the distant mountain because it was passed down as truth through generations."Read what I said: "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. "Basically, this debate was hindered from actually being productive by my opponent's poor command of the English language. Here follow some examples:"I assumed you were using bad grammar and talking about an organisation when you said "agency". I guess you weren't."One of the definitions of agency is"A thing or person that acts to produce a particular result." from the Latin agentia or "doing" But I'll bite. How did the idea of an organization make you think that irreproducibility of evolution was the basis for my objection? "Then we've got crossed wires; I personally define evolution as the meaning of the word "evolution" when scientists use it. "Wires uncrossed then. Darwinism, the theory of evolution upon which all others are built is defined: "the theory of evolution by natural selection of those species best adapted to survive the struggle for existence" Natural selection by definition cannot involve an agency molding its results. That would be the definition of artificial selection. Now, back to substantive refutation: "Why? The defnition of creationism I'm opposing has nothing to do with the origin of life. You're putting words in my mouth; attacking a strawman of me."Perhaps not, but how can one prove creationism as you asked I do without proving the creator? "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. 1. Are you serious? What are you on? I'll tell you what you're on; religion. 2. How does it not follow? The form of the argument is correct. Here's another argument with the same form. Prerequisite: There is no known difference between the validity of teacher a and another teacher. If teacher a can't be wrong, another teacher can't be wrong. Either teacher a isn't the only right teacher or teacher a can be wrong."In other words, exactly what I said. Q does not follow from P, unless you introduce another premise. That's precisely what "not following" means. Finally, my opponent reveals himself for the zealot he truly is. "Given an almost infinite multiverse of universes, it would be almost certain to happen somewhere""For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? ... [I]nvoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith" - Paul DaviesReligion, you see, is an unavoidable part of the human psyche. Man will worship. If you quash one form of it, another will appear. If a man will not believe in God, whom he cannot see, touch, or smell, it may be that he believes in gaiaism, anthropomorphizing the earth and fearing the impact of human behavior beyond what good science calls for like an Aztec with a beating heart held over the altar, trying to ensure the sun rises another day. If he will not believe in the Creator who resembles man, he will believe in one that resembles a turtle, or in the case of my opponent, who believes one who resembles the cosmos. Who then, pray tell, is more blind, between the man who knows he is blind, knows that there is that which he cannot see but must recognize, or the blind man who doggedly rejects the existence of blindness while groping ever in the dark?