If a creationist demands prima facia evidence for evolution=airtight?

Creation is one of two possible origin explanations. Both life and everything we see was either created or it evolved by a random process. Consequently, any evidence against evolution is very good evidence for creationism.

Alternatively, evidence for creationism can be direct evidence rather than evidence against evolution. To identify the very best evidence for creationism, we need to look at both the best indirect evidence (against evolution) and the best direct evidence for creation. Evidence against evolution: There is much evidence against biological macroevolution.

Some of Darwin’s evidence used to support evolution is now refuted because of more modern scientific evidence. One fact is that body parts or entities could not have evolved gradually. Michael Behe discovered that cells were irreducibly complex.

They needed every single chemical and part to function. Consequently, they could not have gradually evolved. Another evidence was the complete lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.

We have not been able to create life from non-life regardless of how hard we have tried. We have not been able to create one species from another even with human intervention. The things that have been used as examples of evolution either have supported microevolution or have been hoaxes, frauds, or have used artistic license to extrapolate conclusions without justification.

However, the best evidences against macroevolution and hence the very best evidence for creationism, is the unimaginable complexity and machine-like workings of a single cell including DNA, RNA, and the manufacture of proteins, etc. None of this was known during Darwin’s time. They thought the cell was a simple blob of protoplasm. The human genome contains so much information it would fill libraries if contained in books.

The machine-like workings of a cell have been related to our most sophisticated factories. Nobody would ever suggest that random processes could generate libraries of information or make a manufacturing plant. This favors creationism.

Direct evidence for Creation: The Big Bang theory is the current scientific explanation of our origin. It places the origin of our universe at a specific time in the past. So whether we believe in science or believe in creation or both, we believe we came from nothing at a specific time in the past.

The difference is that the Big Bang states that everything was created from nothing without a cause or a purpose. Alternatively, if we believe in creation, we believe that everything came from nothing by the will of an omnipotent, transcendent Creator that is not limited to time and space and we were created for a purpose. This completely explains how apparent design and complexity could have come into existence.

However, the very best evidence for creationism is the claim by God Himself that He created light, the universe, the Earth and all life. You might question whether that argument holds up under scientific scrutiny? We all know the creation story in Genesis, but how can we know directly through scientific rationale that it is true.

We can show that it was written in the Old Testament, but how can we show direct evidence that it is true? We only need to accept the most thoroughly documented history in existence and examine the evidence for who Jesus was. Our calendar is based upon the birth of Jesus.

How historical is that? In Mark 13:19 (NKJV) Jesus stated, “For in those days there will be tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of creation which God created until this time, nor ever shall be.” Could Jesus have been anything other than what He claimed to be, the God of creation?

C.S. Lewis in “Mere Christianity” addresses the possibilities of who Jesus could have been. He concludes that He couldn’t have just been a great moral teacher. He had to be the Son of God, a lunatic or the Devil.

He certainly wasn’t a lunatic or the Devil so He had to be the Son of God. If He is the Son of God and He said God created everything, then this is the very best direct evidence for creationism.

They think if only big, bad science wasn't in the way, their faith would suddenly make sense to everybody. In other words, they treat it as the "default" option, hence the general treatment of the idea of God and creation as self-evident. Needless to say this crowd is generally not very familiar with the diversity of systems of beliefs on Earth.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.