You can corner evolutionists using a disjunction. (binary = two options only) Disclaimer; I am not saying that in all circumstances evidence can be forced into two categories, what I specifically am saying is that when it can be, then it creates an inescapable situation for evolutionists that proves they commit intellectual suicide on behalf of their BELIEFS. (unscientific)
Some questions we ask in life lead inexorably to a disjunction where there are only two options, two types of evidence, and that is all we can find. It doesn't always happen because sometimes there are more options, but for many questions there are two outcomes we reasonably can only expect;
Like if I argue you are not wearing socks, and we know we will be able to get you to remove your shoes.
Outcome 1. Wearing socks.
Outcome 2. Not wearing socks.
If in this scenario we are ABLE to reveal your feet, then those are the only two outcomes in regards to the situation/question. The only two pieces of evidence you might say, or proofs.
So if you say, "the absence of socks on your feet is actually NOT evidence you are not wearing socks", then IPSO FACTO you are then saying that wearing socks would be the evidence you are NOT wearing them. (Because there are only two possibilities in this situation and one of those options has to favour the negative because of the law of the excluded middle. Either the statement someone is wearing socks is true, or false, it can't be a matter of, "it could be true or true")
There is then potentially a third option you may call "denial" where you say, "neither wearing socks nor not wearing them count as evidence socks are absent".
We can now apply this situation to examples that lead to two options only. (true disjunctions)
If we want to know the cause of polymerisation, whether polymers were created/designed or whether they somehow came about naturally, then if they were designed we would expect that if any polymerisation occurred outside of life the process would come from;
Outcome 1. Intelligent designers.
Outcome 2. Natural causes.
If outcome one is NOT evidence they are caused by designers (a contradiction), then the only remaining option would be to say that the evidence of design would be a natural cause that did not require a designer (a contradiction again)
The only known cause of polymerisation outside of life, is when intelligent designers create them such as with nylon and other polymers, meaning this MUST be evidence life's polymers were designed/created when it comes to this situation, because otherwise you are left with being a person in denial.
Not only is the only known cause of polymerisation outside of life, designers, but if you remove the design then that is the very thing that destroys polymers because they depend on being correctly built. The monomers have to be the correct ones, of the correct chirality, and so forth.
Another example is looking for animal kinds in the fossil record.
If God created bats, pterosaurs and Ichthyosaurs from the start, to always be bats, pterosaurs, Ichthyosaurs, always the same pinnipeds such as dugongs, seals, etc.......then if we look in the fossils as creationists the only thing we can expect to find is;
Option 1. Bats, pterosaurs, etc...for however long they persisted in the rocks should be found to be those same kinds of creatures without any record of evolution.
Option 2. Or we find the evolution of those things, such as how a bat developed wings or an Ichthyosaur developed fins, etc.....
We find option 1. If that is not evidence of God creating them then what is since the only other thing we can find is their evolution?
CONCLUSION; It's easy to show evidence for creation and design, all you have to do is corner evolutionists. There are only two examples, there are MANY, and they all favour design. It's interesting that for these types of scenarios, evolution tends to lose the evidence battle.
