To be honest, in all dozens of debates I have had with Creationists, not a single one has given me an answer to my question, which is: What evidence do you have for Creationism?
All Creationists do is try to shift the burden of proof on me by making me provide evidence for evolution, and if I dare try to respond without evidence they refuse to answer my question.
Creationism has no evidence for it whatsoever. I guarantee almost every response can be met with a debunk somewhere on the internet or in a peer-reviewed journal.
It is not based on the Bible, it is not based on science. It is based on the teachings of propagandists Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort, and Matt Slick.
None of them have ever given a single piece of credible evidence for Creationism, and instead give failed attempts at discrediting evolution.
It's obvious that all Creationists are capable of doing is attempt to debunk evolution.
Evolution on the other hand has mountains of evidence that is easily found at your library or on Google. It has stood up to tests far greater than the ones Creationists make up. Evolution admits that it doesn't know all the answers, unlike Creationism, which is unfalsifiable, meaning it is not science and is nothing more than a fairy tale involving magical fruit, talking snakes, plants surviving without sunlight, and angels defending a gorgeous garden in ancient Iraq.
Valid theories are based on evidence or facts, but creationism is based on religious beliefs. People are free to believe their religion, but religious texts aren't factual sources and they have little place in science. There are many Christians who are able to believe in their religion and at the same time recognize the validity of scientific research. Creationism dismisses facts, logic, and the scientific method in favor of trying to fit the world into what they believe it must be.
Creationism has provided many people with an explanation for things that they cannot explain. The theory of creationism has been passed down throughout generations. Creationists often fail to remain current on recent scientific developments. With an open mind, many creationists might change their mind about creationism and accept more scientific data.
Creationism is a nuanced issue. Young Earth creationism is absurd and definitely fits this case and point; however, creationism in general is, in some ways, as valid an argument for the origin of the universe as any - after all, most scientists don't even try (bother) to think of things before the Big Bang.
You have to understand that ancient man saw the world in a very different way. Just because we are more technologically and scientifically advanced does not make us any more knowledgeable about the nature of God. I know from personal experience that there is an afterlife and there is a God.
I believe the theory of creationism is flawed and it does read like a religious fairy tale. The only way I can think to justify the fairy tale is that it was written as a fairytale to explain concepts early humans could not understand. If we were somehow engineered by a superior race then creationism could potentially be real and they stories associated would simply be dumbed down versions that we could understand at the time.