Such an argument is a perfect way to disprove the existence of God. If the evidence doesn't match up to the claim, it is the claim that is false, not the evidence. Humans writing a literal account on the behalf of a non-existent deity would write accounts that don't match up to the facts.
I've not seen Creationism thoroughly disproven, though. It's been tried, but no such disproving has ever been done.
I can't think of a better way to disprove the existence of God than creationism. Your choice.
And I can't think of a more silly notion than a complex organism featuring thousands of working parts, when viewed under a microscope resemble human machines being formed out of lifeless goop over millions of years.
Nor can evolution explain the "everybody can be everything" paradox:
Step 1): Get 100 people who can play every instrument in an orchestra.
Step 2): Have 100 of every instrument on the premises.
Step 3): Have 100 of every musical notation of the music on the premises.
Step 4): Do not bring a conductor in.
The paradox: Do you have a symphony?
No, you don't. Because there's nobody there to direct who does what.
That's how DNA and birth works, though. You take a sperm cell, and an egg cell, they come together and produce the DNA library of an organism and become a single cell.
From that 1 cell, they start to multiply and divide, however, some cells become this, some cells become that. But yet, that first cell, or the "master cell" if you will... had the instructions, the blueprints for
every kind and type of cell that would eventually make up the organism.
How did each cell know what to become? Every cell was capable of becoming anything, but yet the entire organism somehow "knew" to grow all the things it would need -- muscle, bone, organs, blood cells, antibodies, hair, etc.
Unless, of course, there were a conductor....
