positive evidence of creationism

Creationists typically spend up their time flailing away at the various flaws and inconsistencies in the theory of evolution. They appear to believe that if they disprove the theory evolution, then they have proved the theory of creation. They do not seem to realize that they actually have to present positive scientific evidence of a theory of creation before people actually buy into it. Even if there were to disprove the theory evolution, there would be no need to necessarily believe creationism over say the Hindu theory of creation.My challenge for creationists is to present positive scientific evidence that the world was created less than 10,000 years ago. Scientific evidence would include for example a geological formation that would positively indicate that the world was less than 10,000 years old.Along those lines, the creationist could present scientific evidence that:All animals and plants were created at the same time in the recent past.That a global flood took place in the recent pastThat all animals and plants radiated from a Common Point of origin in the Middle East in the recent pastThat olive trees can regenerate and grow new leaves within a few weeks of immersion in a global floodThat eight people can effectively care for 16,000 animals on a ship for a yearThat a wooden ship of the dimensions of the ark could actually be built given Bronze Age tools and would be sea worthy.Creationist could prove the items by actually going out in the field and doing archeological expeditions with the goal of locating for example kangaroo fossils in say Pakistan or Indonesia. They could actually build an ark, using Bronze Age technology, staff it, stock it with supplies of their choice, and 16,000 animals of their choice, and sail it. They could try to locate Precambrian layers of rock in which, for example, reptiles, mammals, birds, and fish all appear at once. They could locate through research that biological barrier which prevents micro- evolution from becoming macroevolution.If they accomplished all or any one of the things, they would not only disprove evolution, but also prove creationism. Despite this, I've yet to find any creationist or creationist organization trying to actually prove their theory. I have looked through several creationist Web sites and have yet to find anyone trying to achieve or even suggest projects that would prove any of creationist tenets. I may be wrong about this, and so I'm willing to be enlightened. Can any creationist direct me to any source that presents this kind of positive scientific evidence of creationism?
Failing that could any creationist on this forum present that kind of evidence?

Nope. Who He/She?
Did any creationist respond?

Thanks, Quetzal. I've already been there and it was the inspiration for my post. He does a much better job than me at greater length.
Thinking up creationist research projects is a fun excercise, and the flood story provides inwspiration forfor anynumber of projectsuggestions.
Another off the top of my my head is how, for example, in the Flood,large animals like whales & elephants get sorted to the upper levels while tribolites get sorted to the bottom.Any highschool physics student could demonstrate that this could not consistiently happen, yet this is was the fossil record shows. Any creationist who could show how the flood achieved this would win a Nobel Prize and actually prove one aspect ofcreationism. Oddly, none of them are lining up to demonstrate this.
No creationist has ever written a book like " Creationism: The Fossils Say YES!" which demonstrates that all phyla of plants and animals appeared in the fossil record within the last 10,000 years.Why is that, I wonder?
Of course, no creationist has responded to my post, either. I guess, there just isn't any positive scienticfic evidence for young earth creationism

Thanks for posting, truecreation. I have read your response in the flood thread, so we'll try to avoid going over the same ground. Lets start with my first question:
What is the positive scientific evidence that all plant and animal "kinds"(including humans) appeared on earth at the same time within the past 10,000 years?

--If you are looking in the fossil record, your in a dead end, because you would be to assume that the fossil record was layed down over millions/billions of years
--------------------------------------------------------------------
At least, True Creation, you concede that the fossil record appears to have been lad down over million/billions of years and therfore directly contradicts young earth creationism.you then on to argue(I think) that there is genetic evidence that shows that the millions of species presently living on earth could have somehow evolved from basic kinds in the past five? ten? thousand years.
True Creation, I am glad that you concede that micro and indeed even macro evolution happens, which is what would have had to have happened if todays diversity had evolved from a few basic kinds. You should realise however that virtually no evoluntionary biologist believes that evolution could happen at that superfast rate.
True Creation, have you ever heard the maxim " He who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool?" I am trying to put this in the kindest light, but if you don't know about genetics or evolutionary biology, you will look like a fool arguing about it.
Do some research, babe.Read an introductionary textbook on evolutionary biology. Ask some questions of people who know.There are some such folk on this very message board. Serously, read up and then draw some conclusions. Then we can talk.