You really are a good example of a person who thinks that if they disprove evolution, that creationism will win.
It is not a matter of "disproving" evolution, for evolution is not held to be even a valid theory anymore by many scientists. Of those many, quite a few could be said to be no friend of Christianity. Your error is in assuming that evolution has any legs to begin with. Until those in the evo-camp are willing to get serious and admit that there are incredible gaps and unknowns that must be accounted for, there is nothing to discuss.
Sorry, one is science, the other is religion.
Wrong. That is simply your own self-serving mis-characterization. Evolution rests on faith every bit as much (if not a great deal more so) than Biblical Creation. Evolution has not been remotely proven anywhere by anyone. The facts do not support evolution. It is sustained only by the religious fervor of people like yourself.
ID, Intelligent Designer, is religion, why? It is NOT falsifiable. Can you prove or disprove the existence of an intelligent designer "SCIENTIFICALLY" ? The answer is NO, therefore it is unscientific.
Alas, Houdini wannabe, this is just another verbal sleight of hand on your part. ID is suggested by the evidence. True science follows the evidence where ever it leads. Honest inquiry demands that we allow for the possibility of the supernatural - a higher intelligence than our own - because our own biological discoveries tell us, rather loudly, that none of this grand complexity could possibly have generated itself through an unsupervised, random process. It takes more faith to believe that than to believe in a Creator.
Can you prove the existence or nonexistence of god "SCIENTIFICALLY", NO, therefore anything that has a supernatural cause or explanation, is NOT scientific.
Any concern with the invisible--that is, religion, ethical values, metaphysics--is not within the province of science, whose business extends no further than the observation and collation of data.
Speculations and statements about ultimate reality in meanings behind the universe are not proper to science because science studies observable and repeatable phenomena piecemeal and from the outside.
Evolution is a worldview which proposes that all things arose by chance, starting with eternal matter and aeons of time, without a creator. And yes, it does come down to that, no matter how many times you sputter that evolution really only means 'change over time'. Therefore evolution is a theory of origins. As such, it is not scientific at all. It is not within the province of science. It is properly a religion, and must take its place accordingly, and compete in the marketplace of ideas just as other religions do.
Religion is NOT science, and Science is NOT religion.
This statement is irrelevant to our discussion.
Give me ONE, scientifically verifiable piece of evidence that disproves evolution. JUST ONE....
As I said before, it is not a matter of 'disproving evolution', for evolution is not even a valid theory. The real question is, "Does the evidence of nature, fairly considered, point to the reality of a Creator, an intelligent source for the immense information content of every living cell?"
And of course, the reason you don't want that question on the table is that, indeed, the evidence does point to the reality of an intelligent designer if one is allowed to consider it.
I should add that upon examination it quickly becomes apparent that there are many big problems with evolution. The lack of transitional fossil forms (which should be present in huge numbers if evolution is true), irreducible complexity of the cell structures, mathematical impossibilities events occurring as evolution requires, the fact that mutations to an organism are invariably either fatal to that organism or detrimental in some way, (deleterious mutation rate so high that it would have resulted in the extinction of the species), the second law of thermodynamics being violated, etc., etc.
Creationism is NOT science, therefore it CANNOT replace a scientific theory.
Creation is beyond the realm of science. However, that does not mean that true science cannot imply creation.
I don't know where you're getting your information from, but these are all well-refuted charges.