Most convincing evidence for creation theory

I accept Divine Revelation as truth, just as you scientists accept the Scientific Method

Grizz writes:Convincing to whom? That's my point.

So my best evidence for Creationism is Divine Revelation itself

Considering the title of the topic, and your view that creationists have ample evidence to support their position, would you like to tell us what that ample evidence is? Or at least, some of it?

Based on the observed rotational speeds of the stars about the center of our own galaxy, "if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless smear of stars instead of its present spiral shape."At the current rate of erosion from water and winds "it would only take 15 million years to erode all land above sea level," depositing it into the ocean.At the current rate of sedimentation, the accumulation of sedimentation from the continents "implies that the present ocean floors have existed less than 15 million years." Fossil evidence supports the current rate of sedimentation.Assuming that the oceans had no salt to start with, at the current rates of sodium entering and leaving the oceans, the oceans would have accumulated their present amount in less than 42 million years. Using the most generous allowances for evolutionary scenarios, still gives a maximum possible age for the oceans of only 62 million years.The earth's magnetic field energy has been decaying at a factor of 2.7 over the past 1,000 years. At this current decay rate, the earth could not be greater than 10,000 years old.Many erect fossil trees in Nova Scotia were found "throughout 2,500 feet of geologic strata, penetrating 20 geologic horizons. These trees had to have been buried faster than it took them to decay. This implies that the entire formation was deposited in less than a few years.""Many strata are too tightly bent. In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic timescale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition."All naturally-occurring families of radioactive elements generate Helium (in the form of an alpha particle) as they decay. Taking into account the amount of helium flowing into and out of the atmosphere, "it would take less than 2 million years to accumulate the small amount of helium in the air today.""Helium produced by radioactive decay in deep, hot rocks has not had time to escape. Though the rocks are supposed to be billions of years old, their helium retention suggest an age much less than millions of years."There are not enough stone-age skeletons to account for the approximately 4 billion Neanderthal and Cro-magnon people that evolutionary anthropologists say lived during the 100,000 years of the stone age. "Yet only a few thousand skeletons have been found implying that the stone age was much shorter, a few hundred years in many areas."

Based on the observed rotational speeds of the stars about the center of our own galaxy, "if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless smear of stars instead of its present spiral shape."

Evidence is just that. It can prove nothing ...

I have not conversed with any evo who has not already seen and rejected the above.

Which of your evidences listed do you consider to be the most compelling?

How does this chosen line of evidence fare in terms of prediction and independent corroboration?

Do you even accept that prediction and independent corroboration are useful criteria for assessing the validity of a theory/interpretation?

I am guessing that you missed the gist of the post or you wouldn't be asking for something which you have most likely already rejected a hundred times in a hundred other forums.

A bit disingenous, don't you think?

My personal opinion does not matter. Only the evidence matters, and as we have seen over the last several decades, if the evidence does not lead where one wants to go...reject it or reevaluate it until it fits where one needs it to fit.

Depends on the camp examining the evidence, now doesn't it.

Consider this. A honeycomb is a facinating structure and no one can deny the fact that the design is an extremely intelligent one. The design of the honeycomb is not the issue...the designer is.

I have not conversed with any evo who has not already seen and rejected the above. If the evidence does not support the particular camp to which we belong, we will reject that evidence or mold it until if fits nicely into our pre-conceived notions of life and how it came to be.