Creationism is false.

Refutation: > Well, I had hoped from your coherent, cool-headed, first argument that you'd be reasonable and not impassioned about the subject. Clearly I was wrong. You were wrong about one thing; I'm not passionate about the subject. I'm just blunt when I think someone is talking nonsense. It's in my personality. I try to add a bit of personality to my work. Maybe you mistook that for passion. Also, in what way was I not reasonable? > "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. If you disagree with that or my point; you're talking moonshine. However, whether your religion is true or a load of bull is not the point. The point is that scientists have proved that humans evolved from apes, so humans evolved from apes, so creationism is false. People would accept that the milky way galaxy is about 100 thousand lightyears across if they googled it; or at least they would not deny it -- on the grounds that it's not their area of expertise -- but when it comes to something like the very well established theory and fact of evolution (just as gravity is both a theory and a fact), they think they know better than scientists. Hilarious. 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. To be honest, the only reason I'm so informal with this half of the argument is because it has absolutely diddly squat to do with creationism being false; it's purely there to add flavour. > "1. Evolution usually only does the same thing once."What does this have to do with anything? The inability to reproduce humans evolving from apes through evolutionary means; which you seemed to be talking about when you said: >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. I assumed you were using bad grammar and talking about an organisation when you said "agency". I guess you weren't. > Premise a) God would not make humans evolve from nonhuman apes."It follows from my definition of evolution that if a being possessed with libertarian free will had to intervene to "make" a result, it is not evolution. Then we've got crossed wires; I personally define evolution as the meaning of the word "evolution" when scientists use it. Also, we never established that any supernatural being has to intervene with anything. You seem to be making stuff up, here. Are you living on another planet? > Why are you questioning this premise, anyway? Your whole case rides on the fact that divine agency and evolution are opposed. No, it doesn't. My case has nothing to do with the existence or lack of existence of supernatural, magical or otherwise ridiculous beings. If you think otherwise; please point out the part of my case that does. > At best, it took one million years. The most difficult part to explain for natural process evolution is Homo Sapiens tremendous capacity for abstract thought. Easy; bigger brain. > Homo erectus, the second on the chain, does not seem to have been nearly so gifted. Homo Sapiens himself went from stone-age hunter gathering to Greek philosophy in only ~200,000 years. There are several unfalsiable theories as to why humans would develop through natural selection a stupendous capacity for thought totally beyond what could be beneficial for survival. Where's your proof that homo sapiens' capacity is greater than is evolutionarily beneficial? Just because it seems to be to the layperson? > But since you insist I prove creationism, you must permit we go beyond the primate origins of man, and go to the origin of all life 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. My argument in argument 2 (under the section "My argument") still stands: The rest of what you said seems to be a completely irrelevant tangent and doesn't seem to add flavour by being discussed, so I will not discuss it; there's no point discussing something that has nothing to do with the topic unless discussing it has other benefits that are worth its downsides. I will add this, though: even if you proved that human existence would be so improbable that it was almost impossible to follow from the early universe, the key term is "almost impossible". Given an almost infinite multiverse of universes, it would be almost certain to happen somewhere; whether that multiverse is natural or artificial. Recommendation to everyone: I recommend you take a look at the website Talk Origins.