None of the evidence points towards any of the creation stories.
That's quite a courageous claim!
None of what evidence?!!
I don't know if you've ever seen that film entitled : "The Atheist Delusion"
It featured a creationist interviewing various people, many of whom identified as atheists. The creationist challenged their current beliefs about evolution, by posing a series of simple questions which ultimately stumped them. (As a cynic, I would of course be interested to see any footage that ended up on the cutting room floor!)
Needless to say it was apparent, from the approach taken, that the film was made for the purpose of conveying a message validating creationism, whilst at the same time invalidating atheist opposition to same.
From my recollection the presented argument, essentially favouring creationism over evolution, did hold some logical merit, and didn't strike me as the sort of thing one could readily dismiss without further enquiry.
Anyhow, evidence is a fascinating concept, and worthy of discussion in its own right.
So I suppose it might be helpful to define what the word evidence is understood to actually mean when people invoke it!
I have witnessed many an anti-theist, boldly declaring the absence of any evidence for the existence of God! And yet, as a theist, I am encountering evidence (not proof) virtually everywhere I go, every single day!
A creationist could rightly argue that they consider written historical testimony as evidence (not proof) for their chosen belief system. Whilst I do not share all of their literal (as opposed to symbolic) interpretations of certain biblical passages, I try to respect their right to pursue their chosen avenue of enquiry.
Records of an event, could be argued to constitute evidence (although not proof) granting some support to the notion of the existence of the event. Whether those records are sufficiently dependable to make a confident determination of the veracity, or lack thereof, of the event so recorded, is another matter, rendering their acceptance as very much subject to the opinion of their examiner.
Some examples might be, a book about a boy wizard, known to be a work of fiction, told for the purposes of entertaining children whilst conveying some allegorical moral themes.
Or a tome on medical procedures, intended for instructive use when written, but subsequently rendered obsolescent due to advances in biological understanding. (Would the examiner have sufficient experience to employ the necessary considerations when assessing the merits of these works? Some may, others may not!)
The "Bible" is not a single book, but essentially a library of books, each of which has its very own context!
Some questions one might choose to consider when perusing its contents are:
(i)Who authored the book?
(ii)What was the purpose for which the book was written?
(iii)Who was the intended audience?
(iv)Was the intended message being conveyed literally, allegorically, symbolically, (something else entirely!!)?
(v) When and in what language was it first written, and what was its subsequent history of translation/s?
(vi) What was the environment,(political,cultural, technological), at the time of writing?
Understandably, conflicting understandings of the intention behind, and/or reliability, of some of the passages, found therein, are to be expected.
Anyhow getting back to the concept of evidence, if people are discussing a thing (even if that thing hasn't been proven to truly exist) the discussion alone counts as a form of evidence(although not proof)!
Whatever belief system one may happen to prefer, they cannot rightly claim the total absence of evidence for anything that has been recorded or discussed!!!