All sorts. Physical, forensic, documentary, testimonial, circumstantial, digital, etc etc etc.
But remember that people make mistakes and tell lies. Evidence about statements and beliefs is not necessarily evidence that those statements and beliefs are true.
Yes of course it doesnt mean its all true. For my part, i find the historical evidence for my faith reliable and robust. You may not. But it doesnt mean there isnt good evidence. It means both of us have different things that convince us.
Genetics neither promotes nor opposes Evolition.
DNA is often called the āBuilding bricksā of life but Evolutionists refuse to cnosider that building bricks do not mean ancestry.
Comparative anatomy? Same thing. Compare what to what. Look at the cars on the road and decide at a glance who built them. Logos aside, the structure is primarily functional.
You have no evidence that any of the skeletons are ancestrally connected or that they were built , even in part āEx Niloā. You were not there.
I do not promote āex Niloā creation beyond the beginning but that still does not rule out that new organs or structures were not ābuiltā or ID.
Common sense would suggest that
Why ex nilo if ancestral works?
But then, scientists do not normally use common sense.
IOW you are claiming beyond the evidence. So donāt talk to me about having no evidence. I do not need it, but you do!
Richard
Lifeās too short.
Maybe, but it is still a matter of perspective. TOE is rigid in its thinking
And so are you.
Richard
Just a comment from a listener:
We all need to remember the difference between observations/facts and their interpretation. I guess you can agree with this.
When we talk about evidence, we easily mix observations and their interpretation. We may look at the observations (= facts) and claim that they tell (or do not tell) something (= interpretation).
I take an example I have mentioned here in the past:
I write this at a (partly) wooden table.
The table is an observation that is probably real (assuming that our life is real and not a simulation).
My interpretation about the observation (wooden table) is that it is among the greatest miracles. Why?
The table is matter and the existence of matter is itself a great miracle - why and how does our universe exist?
The wooden table is made of matter coming from a living organism. That is another miracle: the existence of life. The so called āfine tuningā is related to the miracle of life as even slightly differing physical constants would lead to conditions where the development of life is not possible.
The third aspect of the miracle is that the table has been designed and manufactured by intelligent organisms - the miracle of intelligent life. This is perhaps the least wonderful aspect of the miracle because having matter/energy and life might lead to some sort of intelligent life through evolution. Anyhow, for me the existence of intelligent life - also shown by our debates here - is part of the miracle.
I can claim that the table is a fact - an observation that could be confirmed by other observers.
My claim that it is a miracle is interpretation, all would not agree with that. That miracle (the wooden table) supports my interpretation that there is a Creator. The observation (table) is no proof of my interpretation but I claim that existence itself is a great mystery that should leave us wondering about the origin of such an universe where we live.
Believers often forget that others can interpret the observations in a different way than they do. Also atheists/agnostics/others may make the same error. That complicates the communication in a way that may lead to unnecessary arguing.
Edit:
When we claim that an observation is āevidenceā for something, it would be helpful if we would also explain why we interpret the observation in a way that makes it evidence. If someone does not do it, there may sometimes be a need to explain why the observation is not sufficient evidence. In an optimal case that would not be necessary because the person who claims something should do the explaining.
Thats a good word. I guess i get frustrated because atheists often act like their interpretation is obvious without acknowledging worldview.
I get frustrated when apologists go on and on and on about evidence, but never present any.
You know youre being disingenuous. You know that many present evidence. You just dont accept that evidence as valid.
Not in this thread they havenāt. Itās full of excuses, but not even a hint at any evidence.
Excuses like this one:
You have absolutely no idea what evidence I am aware of, whether or not it is valid, whether or not I accept it (or why) or what I accept it as evidence for. All you have is bias.
Itās not surprising you get disparaged by atheists if all you ever do is claim to have evidence but refuse to share it.
If you want to discuss evidence, Iām happy to discuss evidence. But if you only make excuses for not discussing evidence, Iāll just laugh at you.
Added: Peter wrote: āAlways be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.ā Perhaps you havenāt read that verse yet.
I already mentioned fine tuning. I believe the gospels are evidence. I think historical testimony is evidence. Im not interested in you picking it apart though.
Have fun in the 
and 
category.
Youre welcome to laugh at me but i didnt really want to debate. We have different epistemologies and thats fine. Just wish youd be more respectful.
Previously:
But now, after all those unprompted negative comments about āatheistsā and āskepticsā:
Respect goes both ways.
What i described has happened several times in this thread. So i dont know what to tell you.
[citation needed]
You could start with āfrom atheists its that ECs are just coping ā¦ā
I see a vicious circle:
Atheists disparage me ā I refuse to start dialogues with atheists ā Thereās no proper engagement ā I blame the atheists ā Atheists disparage me.
Thereās a problem here: the organizations you reference ARE compromisers: they take a MSWV and force the scriptures to fit it, instead of letting the Bible be what it is ā ancient literature ā and going with that. This is why I reject those groups as blasphemous, not because of anything from outside the scriptures but because of the scriptures themselves: YEC is contrary to the scriptures.
Actually most people donāt, they just absorb one by default. To pick a narrative, one must first understand that there are different ones! Creation. com & the rest just assume that the narrative they were raised with, that to be true something has to be scientifically and historically correct, is reality, and so they distort the scriptures with that alien viewpoint.
Psychologists Iāve known would say that however uncharitable it may be, it is an accurate take on the great majority of people.
Not true at all ā I have yet to meet more than a score of folks for whom evidence was not needed.
Which just goes to show that they fail to recognize that they have a certain worldview and are taking it on faith.
Absolutely.
But therein lies a crash of worldviews: what counts as evidence?
Itās why Pilateās question to Jesus is an excellent place to begin a Bible study: āWhat is truth?ā To many, including YECists, truth is what is scientifically and historically accurate, and for the most part that is how people measure āevidenceā.
Amen. Just because something isnāt reproducible doesnāt make it wrong.
Ha! Right back to my point about Pilate and Jesus.
No ā all youāre doing here is demanding that he conform to your worldview.
Actually as stated heās right ā but those categories skip over whether genetics lends support to evolution.
Nicely put.
Which being interpreted means, āI get frustrated when people refuse to conform to my worldviewā.
DEC pegged it.
No, Iām pointing out that he keeps talking about evidence, then makes excuses for not providing any.
Heās welcome to his own worldview and his own standard of evidence. What convinces him is his choice.
What he is not welcome to do is whinge that skeptics donāt engage while refusing to engage himself.
Wrong. He hasnāt presented any evidence, of any kind. He hasnāt said much about his epistemology either, or about his views. He wonāt even say what he meant by āfine tuningā.
This thread is just excuse after excuse after excuse. Itās vacuous. Itās not possible to tell if @DesperateEC knows what standards of evidence are, or what is in the gospels, or what fine-tuning is, because he simply does not provide details of anything.
Iām quite happy to talk to those with different worldviews. You, for example. But I wonāt put up with hypocritical whining.
āLet your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.ā -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.