Science definitively proves Creationism to be factual

I will again address my opponent's points systematically. Preamble- "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." What I read was "If I prove that the world was created by a higher power, then I have also somehow proved that evolution is false." It's possible that I misread that, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but that's what I got. But yeah, there is such a theory as theistic evolution, so proving that the world was created by a higher power does not disprove evolution. In fact, the Catholic Church blessed the concept of evolution a few decades ago. Also, you seem to be looking at this very black and white, as if there were only two possible ways that life could have reached the point that it is at now. There are far more than two. First of all, there are different theories of evolution. (1) Darwinian is definitely the most prominent, but there are others. Then, there are different theories of creation, and they vary so widely that you'd have to specify which one that you were talking about if you wanted to effectively argue for it. Then, you have miscellaneous theories/stories, such as that of Scientology, which posits that human life was created when an alien overlord named Xenu dropped hydrogen bombs on billions of emigrants that left his planet and went to Earth to live near volcanoes (no joke, look it up). So, merely "disproving" any given type of evolution will not automatically prove whichever form of creationism you are arguing for (which seems to be Christian creationism, and, I remind you, it is the official position of the Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination, that macro-evolution is real). 1- "I used it to mean an unguided force which Evolutionists believe created life..." Not all evolutionists believe that an unguided force created life. As an example, I again point to the Catholic Church. You seem to be confusing evolution with atheism. Evolution can and does exist within religions. "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..." Okay, but I was addressing what you said, which was that we couldn't create proteins necessary for life. We clearly can, even if, at this point (or, rather, way back when that experiment was conducted), we can't create all of them. "How can random chance create something we humans, an intelligent and capable force, are incapable of?" Again, random chance originally creating life isn't required for evolution to be true. Evolution occurs after the original creation of life. "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." Any way that humans intentionally create life, whether via sex or in a laboratory, is not by chance. It sounds like you're challenging me to find an example of intentional beings intentionally creating life by accident. 2- "The sheer diversity of the life on Earth is, I don't believe, possible through natural selection alone..." Evolution is a theory that directly accounts for the diversity if life. That's what it's for. That's its purpose. Unless you find something in particular wrong with how the diversity of life occurs within the bounds of evolution, we'll have to assume, for the purposes of this debate, that you've conceded this point. "...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?" We didn't adapt through sheer chance, it was out of need. Organisms that had means by which they allowed oxygen into their body to break down things survived and most others didn't. There are actually a few kinds of cells that still breathe carbon dioxide. And, we didn't develop it suddenly. It wasn't just, like, flipping a switch and BAM we breathe oxygen. Life and evolution don't work like that. "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?" I'm not sure about any theories put forth by actual scientists, but I'll give it a shot. Firstly, I want to point out some errors in your question. They didn't evolve at the "exact same time." Again, evolution isn't like flipping a switch. And they didn't evolve just to save eachother from extinction. Animals/insects/bacteria aren't that altruistic. They did it for self-preservation. Anyway, on to my amateur theory. The wood-eating bacteria were in the wood, eating it. The termites at that time used to bite off and/or eat the wood to make homes like they do now, only it went slower because of the lack of bacteria. In the process of doing so, they ate some bacteria. The bacteria thrived because of the income of wood, they found their niche, reproduced, etc. Likewise, termites tolerant to the bacteria thrived. Now they're good buddies. 3- "...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." As I said last round, "As the ability to 'see' became a greater and greater advantage, the capacity to 'see' became of greater and greater magnitude." Organisms that could see better thrived more often and produced offspring with their superior optic traits. The process continued and now here we are. Simple as that. "...how can you explain the peculiar human brain?" That's a great question, and here's a great TED video explaining it in length. http://tinyurl.com... I could never fit the whole thing here, but, basically, we cook our food. It sounds crazy, I know, but watch the video. It's great. 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." Our instincts tell us to help people for the betterment of the species. There just hasn't been significant enough harm done by helping disabled people to warrant sufficient evolution of that instinct to keep us from helping disabled people. My argument addressing your closing statement is in the comments because I am running high on characters. Also, I posted this round with about 5 minutes to spare, lol. Sources- 1- http://tinyurl.com...2- http://tinyurl.com...3- http://tinyurl.com...