It seems this thread has become circular!
Ã¢â‚¬Å“This post is based on the assumption that creationism contends with evolutionary biology...Ã¢â‚¬Â
Ã¢â‚¬Å“I want to know what creationists think is the evidence for creationism.Ã¢â‚¬Â
Here is a coherent theory
Ã¢â‚¬Å“You would still need to have a coherent theory of creationism...Ã¢â‚¬Â
(the definitions of the word Ã¢â‚¬Å“theoryÃ¢â‚¬Â are vague at best):
It seems there is purposeful design in all of life; there must be (or I think there is) a designer.
Seth does an awesome job and this thread really ends there:
Ã¢â‚¬Å“We use Exactly the same evidence and data as evolutionists do. The only real difference is our "interpretation" of said data.Ã¢â‚¬Â
...and so on
However, lehtv demands Ã¢â‚¬Å“proofÃ¢â‚¬Â is not possible,
No. Science does not deal with proof of any kind.
which lends validation to SethÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s argument about Ã¢â‚¬Å“evidenceÃ¢â‚¬Â Ã¢â‚¬â€œ which is what the OP asked for.
Although a valid show of proof is given,
That is an absolute statement. No proofs=nothing is 100% true all the time. If I heat water to 212f, 100c at 14.7psi, it will boil.
but is discounted by lehtv as Ã¢â‚¬Å“observationÃ¢â‚¬Â. I do not agree, at some point in the past it is very likely somebody (whether scientist or not) hypothesized that water can boil. Larry shows absolute proof that water can indeed boil under certain conditions, not mere Ã¢â‚¬Å“observationÃ¢â‚¬Â but Ã¢â‚¬Å“PROOFÃ¢â‚¬Â Ã¢â‚¬â€œ and that person can claim Ã¢â‚¬Å“I proved that water can boilÃ¢â‚¬Â.
The Wright brothers hypothesized that man could build a Ã¢â‚¬Å“flying machineÃ¢â‚¬Â, and they Ã¢â‚¬Å“PROVEDÃ¢â‚¬Â their theory
of man-designed flying machines. Do these flying machines sometimes fail? Unfortunately, yes Ã¢â‚¬â€œ but this still does not Ã¢â‚¬Å“DisproveÃ¢â‚¬Â man-designed flight-capable machines.
Dictionary.comÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s first definition of the word Ã¢â‚¬Å“evidenceÃ¢â‚¬Â:
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
(Ã¢â‚¬Å“proveÃ¢â‚¬Â, Ã¢â‚¬Å“disproveÃ¢â‚¬Â and Ã¢â‚¬Å“proofÃ¢â‚¬Â are words used in the definition of evidence Ã¢â‚¬â€œ interesting that Ã¢â‚¬Å“ground for beliefÃ¢â‚¬Â is also there)
Dictionary.comÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s first definition of the word Ã¢â‚¬Å“proofÃ¢â‚¬Â:
evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
(interesting that the word Ã¢â‚¬Å“evidenceÃ¢â‚¬Â is used in the definition of proof, also interesting that the word "belief" is used)
--- It seems to me you can not have evidence and/or proof without considering the other, evidence and/or proof ---
Biblical definition of Ã¢â‚¬Å“faithÃ¢â‚¬Â:
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Wind is unseen, but the evidence (proof) of it exists Ã¢â‚¬â€œ from leaves fluttering, to trees falling, to small towns being destroyed.
Because the Ã¢â‚¬Å“theoryÃ¢â‚¬Â of Creation requires faith that God did what He said, and in the time-frame He said it was done, faith is a necessary part of evaluating the Ã¢â‚¬Å“evidence for CreationÃ¢â‚¬Â. Without a belief in God a person simply is not looking for Ã¢â‚¬Å“evidence for CreationÃ¢â‚¬Â, rather the are looking for a Ã¢â‚¬Å“reason to believeÃ¢â‚¬Â. In the OP, lehtv also says this:
... I'm very interested in belief, religions and science as phenomena.
If the assumption is that belief and religion are Ã¢â‚¬Å“phenomenaÃ¢â‚¬Â, then you are already biased against any Ã¢â‚¬Å“evidence[s] for CreationÃ¢â‚¬Â.
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll end my post by simply pointing everyone back to SethÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s well worded, and conclusive, answer to the OP. The Ã¢â‚¬Å“evidenceÃ¢â‚¬Â for both scientific avenues of understanding (Creation or Evolution) is the same, it is all around us: flowers, trees, rocks, animals and human beings.