If evolutionism doesn't exist then we wouldn't even be talking about evolution in the first place. Evolutionism is simply adherence to evolutionary philosophy as the explanation for our existence rather than creation.

Because it's pseudoscience. It starts with the conclusion instead of starting with the evidence and drawing a conclusion from the evidence, and worst of all it doesn't even have evidence. There's a reason any credible scientist supports evolution and it's not a dead philosophy (it's not even a philosophy, evolution is a scientific fact and the theory of evolution is a well supported scientific theory (not to be confused with the daily-use word theory which has an entirely different meaning). There's no arguments in the scientific community about evolution because of the overwhelming amount of evidence. Meanwhile all sources about creationism claim a lot of things that do not have any support, or straight out fake and misinterpret science on purpose to support the pre-written conclusions in the bible. 
 
It's the farthest from science it can be. 

Why? I would rather suggest you cease this juvenile attitude of yours.

They're evidently not the same thing, but that's the best excuse the evolutionist can come up with, and at least creationists have been honest enough to differentiate between them. At best, macroevolution could be argued as being microevolution dragged out across aeons of time, but that's still merely a half-truth. Microevolution is simply small scale change or adaptation within living things (something which can be easily observed and documented), whereas macroevolution (assuming it was ever even real) deals with the sort of large scale change as displayed alongside the conventional geologic timeline, or for instance "turning a microbe to a fish, or a theropod to a bird, or an ape to a man" (which obviously cannot be observed nor documented and which is blatantly contradicted by actual science, but since that's the best the evolutionist can come up with, and since they don't want anything to do with the reality of God and creation, they keep promoting it in spite of its deceitful and poisonous pseudoscientific nature). Claiming there to be "no debate about evolution" is merely a sign of naiveté, insecurity, and straight out being in denial, seeing as the topic has been intensely debated both within evolutionist and creationist circles since the concept was first proposed (noting that this even spans before Darwin), and the promotion of it as a working concept is merely a charade kept alive through masterful and deceptive illustrative and authoritative skills, and the general public is generally unsuspecting and merely swallows whatever they are being fed, and then carries it forward if the taste of it is sweet, and suddenly you've got an entire society brainwashed by evolutionary philosophy (where morals are no longer objective and the value of every human being has been relegated to that of any other animal or material things), ultimately heading for eternal damnation for having turned their backs on the truth and abandoned God and Christ's gift of eternal life. We only have this one life to decide whether we'll be slaves to sin (and end up in eternal torment) or slaves to righteousness (and experience eternal joy). Turn your back on the Devil's sweet lies and get right with God while there is still time.  

Pellchinnn is a troll. Your best bet is to post the evidence and then block him. He does these shitposts and then blocks you when you go to point out his lies.

Horribly phrased. Rather, among Evolutionists, there is barely no debate on the supposed "validity" of Evolution as a philosophical framework. I was an Evolutionist for 20 years, and it took me several years to dare to come to terms with the reality of it being a dark, amoral, irrational, unscientific concept of a worldview. I believe it's pretty generally understood that macroevolution (if it were ever real) should indeed be an accumulation of changes produced through means of speciation (natural selection or microevolution which, unlike macroevolution, can be tested, repeated and observed), but alas, speciation does not produce this supposed "accumulation" of genetic changes to the organism, but species are produced by means of the decrease of information in the genome, each change gradually destroys the entire lineage of organisms. The actual process of speciation goes downhill, not "uphill" as Evolution would demand. The stone cold truth has to be faced sooner or later, Evolution is none more than an elaborate work of science fiction-fantasy. In other words, you can't go from a microbe to a human being simply because logic tells you (assuming the microbe ever by some strange process succeeded to arise on its own) the microbe will go extinct long before it could ever turn to anything even remotely close to even a worm.