Wait, you challenge everyone to prove a negative? Creationism is not impossible, but it is very clearly something that yields basically no grounds or support, while there are other theories out there as AntiSleep has been describing (better than I could) that have been tested and proved thousands of times over, and clearly stand as the best theory we have at the time.

I think there's a very big difference between "proof" and "strong evidence". I can prove to you that 2+2=4. I cannot prove to you that every star is hot. So which category does evolution fit in?

Now explain to me how you can disprove creationism.

You didn't respond to the second part of my challenge.

1. My personal opinion has no relevance to my argument.
2. Science is cool says Bill Nye the Science Guy.

I think there's a very big difference between "proof" and "strong evidence".

I can prove to you that 2+2=4. I cannot prove to you that every star is hot. So which category does evolution fit in?

Now explain to me how you can disprove creationism.

Probably the latter, which means that it is the most likely determination someone can make based on the provided data and tests of the data.

It cannot be disproved completely.

It can also not be justified enough to be considered a valid theory in science. It makes no testable predictions.

Those questions were there to see if you were just trying to waste my time, it seems that you are.

Proof implies definition, a foundation based on axioms, evidence implies observation and testing, to try and discover the definitions, and the latter is all we have because we do not know upon what exact definitions the universe is built.

Until we know we can take these definitions for granted(I am unsure we ever will be), there is no way to know we have not been deceived, mistaken, or just benighted. This does not give any credibility to creationism, and as you have not defined what you mean by creationism, I cannot answer that question.

Creationism: an alternative to evolution in explaining speciation.

If everything taught in school only needed as much evidence as creationism yields to be taught, then we'd also need to have classes on the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the martians that live on mars. Maybe the theory of how we were placed here by aliens too. That is if this was you somehow trying to justify creationism being taught in school.

Etched within Earth's foundation rocks — the granites — are beautiful microspheres of coloration, halos, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to have only a fleeting existence.

The following simple analogy will show how these polonium microspheres — or halos — contradict the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over millions of years. To the contrary, this analogy demonstrates how these halos provide unambiguous evidence of both an almost instantaneous creation of granites and the young age of the earth.

A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radiactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly "effervescing" specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock.

An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly "froze" into solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony with the biblical record of creation.

I have a few things that prove creationism (with science ) :
Source.

These groupings are empirical sciences, which means the knowledge must be based on observable phenomena and capable of being experimented for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.

Yes. Your little diagram clearly states "testable". I'd like to see the "testable" evidence for evolution.

Gah, he beat me...
Regardless, I still believe in God. Theres this complex thing called speaking in tongues in my religion.

you mean testable predictions?

The discovery of fossils of extinct species

A predictable distribution of complexity of life forms, when compared against the age of the strata, where simple organisms are in strata of all ages, and relatively complex organisms are exclusively found in higher strata(this is not because evolution selects for more complexity, it does not care about complexity nor does it care what the organism will look like several generations down the line, it only cares if the genetic change is immediately beneficial to reproduction and survival.---- basically, there will be no fossil rabbits in Precambrian strata, the discovery of one would blow darwinian evolution out of the water.

The adaptation of organisms to new environmental conditions.

Shall I continue?

Those predictions were made by evolutionary theory before any of them were observed, that is what is meant by prediction and verification. If you want an example of an observation that came before evolutionary theory, look at hereditary morphology(fancy pigeons, etc.), geologic time(as evidenced by coral reefs), and the capacity for exponential reproduction in ideal circumstances.

Of course. In an argument, you present all of your evidence until you're fully exhausted. So far, I've yet to see one single plausible evidence for speciation from you.

As far as I can see, arguments don't have to be plausible by you to be valid. More arguments win the debate right? You aren't arguing them. You're just denoting them, and they still have an effect. You aren't even doing a very good job at denoting the arguments being made.

Also, it is the prediction of an experimental result, before that result is known, that validates a scientific theory on a tentative basis, a hypothesis that simply agrees with existing evidence and makes no new predictions, is not useful, nor is it a scientific theory.

You still have not shown any predictions, evidence, or proofs of creationism.