Creationism is not a viable theory in a world of coincidences.
The evidence supporting evolution only shows theories that can be coincidences. For example, tailbones do not prove that we could have had tails and/or used it for balance. We have no viable evidence for that theory other than the tailbone. That could be a coincidence that we have it.
You're correct, it could very well have been a coincidence. However, it's unlikely that we have tailbones but never had tails in the past. All animals that are believed to have evolved from something with a tail have a tailbone, from whales to humans. However, the evidence for evolution is not only things that could have been coincidences. We have skulls that can show the evolution of the human head, and some skeletons that also show that to some degree. Also, you failed to address the question. You actually said that I was right in your opening statement.
Judging from your lack of response, I'll assume that you've either given up on the debate or you just forgot that it exists. Given that no other proofs have been put forward by you, I have nothing to respond to. I will start responding once again when I get some sort of response from you.