What evidence is needed to change a creationist

For me, you'd have to show me photographic evidence of evolution (photo 1 being the parent, 2 the child, 3 the grandchild, etc.) from one organism to a new one (a fruit fly into, say, a house fly [used purely for example]). You'd need to prove scientifically that God doesn't exist (You'd have to make me forget everything He's done for me). You'd have to prove the big bang with visual evidence (a bright light way far off in the universe would probably do that). You'd need to show me one square mile of the 'Geological Column' that has all of the layers in all the correct orders. You would have to dig all around the Sinai Peninsula to a minimal depth of a hundred and fifty feet without coming up with Egyptian chariots indicating an Exodus. Then, to top it off, show me the bones of Jesus.

I forgot to add one thing.Even if you did all of the above mentioned, you'd have to totally blow the chance theory out of the water.When are faced with a decision to take or not to take a chance, you want to know the risks, the cost, and the probability of winning.The probability of evolution being correct versus creation is 50/50. It's like flipping a coin. But, let's say a friend came up to you and said, "Let's flip a coin. If it's heads, then you'll get the fifty million dollars I just won in the lottery, if you bet on heads. If you bet on tails and it lands on heads, you'll lose everything you have. If it's tails, you'll lose nothing if you bet on heads, but gain nothing if you bet on tails."Which would you bet on? Heads, where you either win or stay the same, or tails where you either loose or stay the same?That is what you have to disprove. You need to show me evidence that when I stay true to God, that it'll either be true and I gain everything, or it'll be false and I'll have nothing changed.

Even if the chances were 0.000000009/99.999999991, heads/tails respectively, which would you choose. I'd still choose heads where I can only gain, not tails where you can only loose (excluding the 'staying the same' portion). It matters not what the odds are when the choice is obvious.

Quote:

"Why would finding chariots prove that the exodus occured."

Why would finding dinosaur fossils prove that dinosaurs lived on the earth? Something had to leave the chariots, and I'm pretty sure that ancient kings wouldn't drive chariots into random seas without a reason, just like modern generals wouldn't drive tanks into the oceans.

Quote:

"You're a few billion years too late for it to still be in the visible.....but it was once."

How can you say "It was once," and "You're a few billion years too late" in the same sentence like that? I would like to meet the person who was there 'a few billions years' ago with a telescope to see this light. And no, a microwave glow won't do, because we don't know if that glow is coming from hundreds of trillions of stars that we haven't known about way beyond the farthest reaches of our telescopes.