How do Creationist Christians respond to the evidence for Evolution? This is a question for people who believe in the creation.

One point considered a serious proof of evolution is the scientific method of carbon dating. As per this method, humans haven't existed from the beginning of the creation of the earth (as per age of discovered human skeletons). However many other species like Apes and have existed before human beings and a species whose skeleton looks partly ape and partly human has been discovered, which existed before humans as well. Humans began to appear around the same time this species seemed to go extinct. Isn't this a proof for evolution? Or at least a proof that creationism does not exist? (Since Humans and animals were created within a span of 7 days according to the bible.)

In what ways do creationist Christians generally handle these claims?
Quite frankly, there are several viewpoints on this.  There is no one answer to your question.


Some Christians see evolution as a complete non-issue (but you asked specifically about creationists, so this group is outside of the scope of our desired answer).
Some hold what are sometimes called "compromise positions" by young-earth creationists, such as the Day-Age theory or the Gap Theory.  Each of these theories explains an old earth while allowing for a semi-literal interpretation of the Genesis account:  The Gap Theory by indicating that there's a "gap" between creation and Genesis and the Day-Age theory by explaining the days in Genesis as "time periods" rather than literal days.
Others - literal young-earth creationists see flaws in the arguments and have specific arguments about the accuracy of the methods used to date the universe as old, and point to other evidences that could indicate a young earth.  


To answer this fully would be too big an answer for this forum, but if you're really interested in how young earth creationists explain these things, a good resource you might consider is: http://www.icr.org (The Institute for Creation Research)

They also have articles that explain the gap and day-age theories, but they absolutely hold to the young-earth creationist view.  

As for the  partly man/partly ape skeletons, both the young and old earth creationist camps happily point to several examples of "human ancestors" that turned out to be mistaken identity or outright fraud.  (Nebraska man, Java Man, and Piltdown man all come to mind off  the top of my head.)  They ask, "If these were accepted as human ancestors, and have been shown to be false, why would we automatically assume that the current "ancestors" are to be trusted."

But again, there's a range of beliefs, and not all creationists agree on every specific point or example.