Can creationists scientifically disprove the theory of evolution, or will the response always be - Bible?

Answer 1

I love the "read genesis 1" answers. If they had read it, they would see that all God had to say about what he had just created was "Ahh yes, I see that it is good!". I guess if god says that it is good, it must be proof enough! In fact, I get a slight feeling from his words that God might have been a surfer. Whoever wrote Genesis 1 must have taken poetic license and deliberately left off the "dude" at the end. Also, if they had read a bit farther in genesis, the very next chapter directly conflicts with the first chapter.

In Genesis 1, the order that God creates things are:
1. Heavens
2. Earth
3. Light
4. Sky
5. Seas
6. Plants and trees (with fruit)
7. Stars
8. Fish, birds, and animals
9. Man.

However in genesis 2, it states that there are no fields of plants or shrubs. But man already exists. God puts him in a garden, which he calls Eden. If there are no shrubs, trees, or fields yet on the Earth except for Eden, then how can all of those birds and animals live? Genesis 1 clearly states that there were trees plants and birds before man was created. Hmmm.

Answer 2

Though I subscribe to the theory of evolution, the most likely way for creationists to disprove it is for them to scientifically prove a different theory. (There is yet to be SCIENTIFIC proof for intelligent design.)
However, since experiments, mostly with fruit flies, seem to point towards evolution, the only response possible is the Bible.
Remember, science deals with the natural world only and religion deals with the supernatural.

Answer 3

Scientists haven't yet really proved evolution, at least not in the sense that humans come from apes. I give them credit for trying though. I don't quite understand why creationists should have to disprove the theory of evolution, when it hasn't been proven yet. How do you disprove something that doesn't exist?

Answer 4

Why oh why should "creationists" be bent on disproving the theory of evolution? It doesn't threaten the Christian faith in the least. In fact, The Bible supports it. Read Genesis 1 for more details.

Answer 5

Not sure, but it seems as though through the natural course of evolution that each generation from Adam becomes less and less perfect. The only time that this is different is when species are bred for an improvement such as with certain types of dogs, being bred for certain features.
I am a christian and believe the Bible, but I cannot say I find any scientific proof in favor of evolutionism.

Answer 6

Clearly this debate would not be so intractable (nor so puerile) could either side "prove" or "disprove" their position. The reality is that disproof is the basic epistemological trope of the scientific method, whereas faith (that is to say, acceptance in the absence of proof) is the basic epistemological trope of religious belief. So, of course, the correct answer is:

Creationists are supporters not of a scientific theory (whatever some zealots might maintain), but of a religious belief system. So proof and disproof are irrelevant.

Evolutionists are supporters not of a religious belief system (however invested some might appear), but of a scientific theory. So faith and doubt are irrelevant.

Answer 7

The evidence that evolutionist use to support their theory comes from sensation claims and ideas.

After more than one hundred years of experimental breeding of various kinds of animals and plants, the amount of variation that can be produced (even with intentional, not random, breeding) is extremely limited, due to the limited range of genetic variation in each type of living thing: dogs who are selectively bred for generations are still dogs, fruit flies are still fruit flies, etc... And when specialised breeds are allowed to return to the wild state, they mostly perish or the survivors revert to the original wild type. "Natural selection is really a conservative force that works to preserve the genetic fitness of a population, not to change its characteristics, a main point that evolutionist use to suppor their ideas.

Also, the vast and complex mutations required to produce complex organs such as an eye or a bird's wing (or hundreds of other organs) could nto have occurred in tiny mutations accumulating over thousands of generations, because the individual parts of the organ are useless unless the entire organ is functioning. The mathematical probability of such random mutations happening together in one generation is effectively zero. Darwinists are left saying tha tit must have happened because it happened. Robert Kofahl uses this explanation: "the Bombardier beetle uses chemicals to repel enemies by firinga hot charge of chemicals from two swivel tubes in its tail. The chemicals fired by this beetle will spontaneously explode when mixed togther in a laboratory, but apparently the beetle has an inhibitor substance that blocks the explosive reaction until the beetle squirts some of the liquid into its "combustion chambers," where an enzyme is added to catalyze the reaction. An exlosion takes place and the chemical repellent is fired at a temp. of 212 F as the beetle's enemies. Can you image the slow and tiny mutations that had to occur for this precise event to have happened? Each component of the beetle's anatomy is required in order for it to survive its own protection system.

It is more likely for a tornado to go through a junkyard and assemble a Boeing 747 than it is for evolution to have happened.

I am a man of faith and I tend not to go by facts as much as I do by faith. But these facts seem to speak for themselves.

Curtis

Answer 8

Darwin himself later in life even said that his theory was incorrect. A lot of the evolution theory is based on carbon dating to determin when the bone were alive. The inventor of carbon dating himself is on record as saying it is very flawed. Science is just mans understanding and even what we believe to be proven truth is not always. Columbus proved that.

Answer 9

I'm Christian and I believe in evolution, but concerning pure creationists of course the answer will always be the bible. I'm sure you are not willing to believe them any time soon and neither are they.

Answer 10

It is a matter of your presupositions.

I believe the Bible, so I interpret the facts I am presented with based on that basis.

Evolutionists believe in billions of years and so interpret the facts with that as a presuposition.

This website contains many articles that use the same facts as the Evolutionists use to prove Creationism

http://www.answersingenesis.org/