Before we proceed, it is essential that we set a few ground rules and delimit exactly to what we are referring when we speak of evolution in the context of the evolution\creation conflict
Fair enough, but still starting out with assumptions. Right?
Although already there may be some dissenters bristling over the relative merits of biological 'simplicity' or 'complexity'; I maintain that, in however a general or specific sense, a multicellular organism (say, a human, a blue whale, or a Velociraptor mongoliensis) is relatively more complex (systemically) than a unicellular blue-green alga; although I will concede that complexity is not a measure of a population of organisms success (viz.: bacteria and alga are much more voluminous and have been extant far longer than Homo sapiens), but is used here solely for purposes of differentiation between the neontological and paleontological concept of evolution.
Assume that the existance of simple organisms, complex organisms and still more complex organisms is proof of a progression and, further, is proof of evolution. Assume that the existance of mud huts (with foundations, walls, windows, roofs) and skyscrapers (with foundations, walls, windows, roofs) is proof that skyscrapers evolved from mud huts.
It is a FACT that all living forms come from previous living forms.
Only if you assume the above assumptions. But, wait...
Maybe this whole agrument is in vain. Let's go back to the beginning before any more intellectual energy on either side of this debate is wasted on this particular argument. Give, please, for all now to see your definition of a "fact".