Creationism is false.

Introduction: Welcome, contender. Thank you for accepting this debate. Clarification: "It is known that creationism is false" is not the topic at all. "Creationism is false" is the topic; as is clearly stated in the topic section of this argument. So your goal is to prove that creationism is not false, or -- described more simply -- that it is true. (not true == false; not false == true) Regardless of whatever claims I may or may not have made, the point still stands that the goal of a debate, like this one, is to either prove or disprove the topic. Refutation: Genisis 1 is a heavenly or spiritual creation? Well, if you assume it's a factual text and not just made up. What else could it be? Made up. If it can't be made up, then non-Christian religious texts can't be, either, and Christianity isn't the only true religion. If other religious texts could be made up, so can the Bible (including Genisis 1). You can't have it both ways; you can't have it so that the religious text you believe in must be right, but all other religious texts must be wrong. You can believe you have it both ways, but you don't have it both ways. You basically seem to be arguing: Premise a) God would not make humans evolve from nonhuman apes. Premise b) If God would not make humans evolve from nonhuman apes, humans did not evolve from nonhuman apes. Conclusion) Humans did not evolve from nonhuman apes. The question is, what do you have in support of premise a or premise b? Do you magically know that God exists when the rest of us don't? Also, addressing premise b, God doesn't need to do anything; or even exist. Even if God doesn't make humans evolve from apes, nature could have made humans evolve from apes. > Premise 4: Epistemic nitpicking, lots of things that appear to be true can, upon further examination, not be true, Yes, you can be wrong about things; but if something warrants belief, it's very unlikely that it's not true; so, generally, it is true. What I see in your argument is several assertions. You haven't justified many of them, so no one in their right mind should believe them just because you say or personally believe them. If they believe what you say, it should be through logical justification; which you have not provided. Please provide some logical justification. > 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. 1. Evolution usually only does the same thing once. 2. I think it took millions of years for nonhuman apes to become human. Side note: Humans are already a species of ape. My argument: Premise 1: Scientists have proved that humans evolved from nonhuman apes. Premise 2: If scientists have proved that humans evolved from nonhuman apes, humans evolved from nonhuman apes. Premise 3: Therefore, humans evolved from nonhuman apes. Premise 4: If humans evolved from nonhuman apes, creationism is false. Conclusion: Creationism is false. Argument form: Premise 1: p (Based on research.) Premise 2: if p, a (Based on logic.) Premise 3: Therefore, a (Supported by premises 1 and 2.) Premise 4: If a, -c (Based on logic.) Conclusion: -c (Supported by premises 3 and 4.) Final notes: Do your own research, please. You can research premise 1 yourself. That way, you know the research wasn't cherrypicked by me.