Does anyone have proof that creationism is NOT true?

Answer 1

No one has proof that God doesn't exist. That is because God does exist.
Every rock cries out in His name's sake.

And about Darwin... would you really take advice from a man who spent years studying dog spit and bells?

Answer 2

There are two possible variants of creationism: intelligent design and unintelligent design.

To prove intelligent design is correct, its proponents try to find examples of "irreducible complexity." Despite their claims that the human eye and blood clotting are examples of this, less complex versions ARE present in other animals. No true examples of irreducible complexity have yet been found.

To disprove intelligent design, all that is needed is an example of truly incompetent "design." Surely someone your age would be able to note a few problems with the human body that really should have been designed better.

For one example in the animal kingdom, giraffes have a nerve that runs from their brain to the top of their neck less than a foot away. Instead of going straight there, it first runs all the way down to the bottom of the neck, loops around the collarbone, and then runs all the way back up. No intelligent designer would ever do something that stupid.

With intelligent design disproven, that only leaves unintelligent design. Is that really the type of behavior you want to attribute to God?

Answer 3

There is no solid HUMAN truth that can be held up as proof that creationism is true.....However, there is only the negative summation that scripture was written down by man(True) and therefore not true...except if you believe and have faith in GOD.

Only, allow for a moment the reality that we believe in God and his inspired word( scripture) ..and that We choose to reject the idea that we evolved from pond scum...why should you object???
Because it threatens you?? NO, because you want to be in control.....and Obedience to God requires a specific moral law be followed..that is what people find so objectionable...Isn't it????

If we only look at geologic time scales, we should assume that all religious beliefs would fall by the way side.... But they don't...Why???? and don't start spouting about stupid ignorant bigoted people...There are far more accepting , open and affirming people in the churches that there are in the rest of society...But we ask you to look at your self..Judge your own conduct....

We all have to decide for our self what we believe...you can't prove anything to me.... Because none of you were there in the beginning...

Answer 4

I dont have proof that there is NOT an invisible unicorn in my garage, does that mean there must be one?

Creationists are the ones asserting that their idea is fact. It is up to them to provide proof of it. Even if evolution is completely false, that does not prove that creationism must be true.

Answer 5

No because there is no proof. Creationism is the 100% truth like God's Word says.

Answer 6

"Did you know that even Charles Darwin said evolution is impossible?"

Winner of misquote of the year. Charles Darwin wrote Origin of the Species, the cornerstone of Evolutionary theory. He hot only said that Evolution is possible but that it is nature of life on this planet.

No there is no proof the Creationism isn't true. There's no Proof that it is. Evolution and Creation are just theories backed with uncorroborated evidence.

Answer 7

There is much scientific proof to substantiate the theory of evolution. There is also much proof that the bible was written by man, not God. I think that we have to acknowledge proof that we can see and touch. Maybe God did create Adam and Eve, but obviously there were other humans on this planet at that time too.

Answer 8

Well it all depends on what you mean by creationism, since there are varied camps within that train of thought, which interpret creationism in different ways. However, if you are referencing creationism, in its most literal sense, in that Genesis is, in verbatim, the true scenario for how the earth and universe was formed, than yes there is ample evidence to the contrary which proves that creationism is false.

Without going into an in depth discussion as to the numerous ways in which the Genesis account contradicts known scientific principles, for time sake and length, lets just take one glaringly obvious error that is in Genesis. In Genesis 1:13-19 it is stated : “And the evening and the morning were the third day. And God said, let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years. And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth. And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that [it was] good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.”

Basic cosmology states that celestial bodies like stars and the sun must logically proceed the earth’s existence because, every star, with the exception of the sun, is literally light years away from us; most of them billions of light years away. A light year is a measure of the distance light travels in a year. With that said, if a star is 10 billion light years away it must have existed well prior to the earth’s existence - which most scientists admit is only about 4.5 billion years old – or the light from that star would never have reached the earth for us to currently see. The light we see now, from a star that is 10 billion light years away, had to emanate from that star 10 billion years ago. Hence this scientific, and very provable fact, lies in stark contradiction to the Genesis account cited above, which states the earth existed before any of these stars.

Another related contradiction to the sequence of existence between stars, sun, and the earth is that Genesis 1:1-12 explicitly references the existence of trees, shrubs, grass, and other vegetation prior to the existence of the sun which comes on a subsequent day, as pointed out in verses 13-19. Yet trees, shrubs, grass, and all varieties of vegetation need the sun in order to perform the self-sustaining process of photosynthesis.

Now of course one can come up with some ad hoc argument, as many creationists do, that God manipulated the laws of physic and biology to where it was possible that plants could have survived without the sun, until the sun was made. First, that response is begging the question, in that one is assuming what one is trying to prove. Secondly, if the laws of science can be so abruptly altered, the entire enterprise of science falls into disrepute because all scientific disciplines are predicated on the notion that certain laws are immutable.

Finally, lets look at something that is even more damning in my opinion to the whole literal interpretation of Genesis that is so common among Creationists. Nothing can better disprove a theory than an internal contradiction among that theory’s basic tenets. A literal reading of the 1st chapter of Genesis states that man was created on the 5th day of creation (Genesis 1:23-31), but Genesis chapter 2 states that man was created after the 7-day process (Genesis 2:1-7). The Genesis accounts can’t even agree as to when man was created.

I, and definitely individuals with a greater grasp of science than myself, can go into numerous falsehoods, erroneous assumptions, and flat out contradictions contained within the Genesis accounts on creation, dismantling them to show how preposterous the whole theory of Creation is. I believe what I stated above is sufficient for this forum’s purpose to answer your question.

Ultimately, matters of faith should not hinge on such trivialities of whether a literal reading of the Bible actually measures up to scientifically provable facts. I am a Christian and I see no contradiction between evolutionary theory and my faith, because I am not a literalist. A book, such as the Bible, having been composed with so much metaphor and allegory, should lead most logical people to conclude that it was not intended to be read literally, and definitely was not made to be construed as a scientific textbook. Those who insist on literalism fear that critical thinking will tarnish or even undermine their faith. To those people, all I can say is that you had very little if any faith to begin with.

Answer 9

Jesus is dead, and Darwin is dead too.
the answerer has passed away.
so why do we so bothered with all the question about our origins?
what the differences does it make if we ever found the true answer?
would i be dead or suddenly poor if i have a wrong answer?

all the question about relligions is such a selfish!!
stop mumbling, and for kindness of human sake..think and act about something else that might help the others. don't make our next childrens more confuse with things that don't have any answer at all.

Answer 10

charles darwin also never used the word evolution. he said natural selection. and can u prove that creationism is true?

Answer 11

no. and no one ever will. believing in creationism means believing in a creator(GOD) which means believing in absolutes, right and wrong. good and evil. black and white. this is where the evolutionist/humanist have there problems. they do not want to deal with moral absolutes so therefor have created a religion that does not include them. make no mistake, it is a religion and worshiped by those who are decieved by it.