Best evidence for Creation

I rarely get involved in the Evo/Creo debate because I don't know enough about evolution to discuss it with any confidence.As far as creation goes, I have obviously studied the two creation stories in the Book of Genesis, and have studied and taught a range of creation stories from around the world.What I would like to discuss here is the evidence FOR creation.When I do read a evo/creo thread, or discuss the topic with 'street-preachers', what they consider to be their best argument is that 'evolution is only a theory', or they might mention 'missing links'. However, this is not the kind of 'evidence' I am looking for, I would like to see evidence FOR creation, and not just evidence against evolution because IF evolution is incorrect this doesn't mean that creation is true.So, creationists, what do you consider to be the best evidence for creation and why?

Hi Reuh,I would take the Bible as evidence, but we would need to enquire about the reliability of the evidence.I am the same about evidence for the existence of God, the Bible and the people who believe in God are both evidence for the existence of God, just not very good evidence IMO.So I would like scientific evidence to support for which ever scripture(s) is/are being presented.What I don't want is "it was a pig's tooth, so creation is true."What would be good would be if someone who perhaps suggests that the Judeo/Christian creation myth is true, then they could tell us what we would expect to see in the fossil record, and does the evidence support it.This is only one angle, I am sure our creo friends must have lots of others.

Hi,If it was self evident I wouldn't have asked the question.If it is self evident to you then fine.Is the identity of the creator also self evident?

That's an excellent point and I firmly believe that creationists who present 'evidence' for creation have a WEAK faith.I think the people who look for things such as Noah's Ark, and other biblical artefacts, have a very weak faith.Religions require that adherents have faith that what that religion promotes and teaches is true. Looking for evidence to support what a religion claims suggests that the person who takes this approach doesn't have that much faith in their religion.Remember the hullabaloo over the Ossuary of James the Brother of Jesus? Although ultimately it was a fake, I really don't see what difference it should make to someone's faith in Jesus as Lord and Saviour if it was somehow confirmed that the contents did contain the remains of Jesus' bro.

So you would say that the best evidence for creation is a philosophical argument?

What I was thinking is that in relation to common sense, you have to base common sense on what you know, or what is known.For example, I haven't accidently cut off a finger, but common sense tells me that if I did accidently cut off my finger there would be lots of blood and it would be painful, because I have had cuts before that have bled and they have been sore.But as far as creation goes, does common sense really tell us that everything HAS to have been created?How do we know that we are not applying common sense to a concept that our common sense has no knowledge of on which to base our common sense driven conclusion?

Identity?Yes, do we know who did the creating?

The idea behind the OP was for creationsist to present their best evidence for creation, and whatever they think is the best evidence is fine.One thing that has developed out of this is just how poor the evidence is when wishing to use it to convince others that creation is true.Maybe creationists should take a step back and realise just how poor their position is scientifically.So far all we have had are philosophical arguments, most of which are badly flawed.Is there really a battle between evolution and creation because I can only see one side providing any evidence of any scientific value?

Any idea what the 'creation museum' use for exhibits?

Talking about scars, here's an argument against creation.In 2000 I had the anterior cruciate ligament in me left knee reconstructed by using a length of tendon taken from the middle of the patellar tendon of my left knee, the surgeon said that the new 'ligament' is far stronger than a normal cruciate ligament. So why did God not use the same stuff that patellar tendons are made of to make our cruciates?