The ToE stands solely on how the "evidence" is interpreted, not on the evidence itself. And because scientists are bound by "scientific method" to seek "natural" explanations for what they observe (to the exclusion of supernatural explanations, or God), their "interpretations" of the evidence are biased toward the ToE. In fact, many scientists, and some very famous ones, are documented as having the stated goal of ruling out God as an explanation for anything.
That being said, the same "evidence" that evolutionists have access to can easily be interpreted to fit within the Biblical time frame of history. All of the fossil evidence, for instance, can be shown to have been laid down by the Flood of Noah's time, and this has been done by scientists not predisposed to an anti-God principle. The global Flood is actually a better explanation for some of the things that have been observed, such as certain fossils being found in places where one would not expect them. The geological layers observed are better explained by a global Flood than some other natural process. Of course, this throws a big kink in the need of the evolutionists to have an extremely long period of time for their explanation to make sense.
So they turn to radiometric dating to support long periods of time. The problem with that is that radiometric dating methods are based on assumptions that cannot be proven. For a quick review of what radiometric dating is: Radioactive elements such as uranium "decay" into other elements over time. Uranium (the parent element) decays into lead (the daughter element), for example. The rate of decay is called the half-life, and has been shown to be constant. Over a given period of time, a certain amount of the parent element will decay into a certain amount of the daughter element. To arrive at an estimate for the age of a sample, scientists determine the ratio between "parent" and "daughter" elements in the sample, and plug that into an equation using the known half-life of the parent element, rendering an estimate on the age of the sample. But this process makes assumptions that the scientists have no way of determining with any certainty. Scientists have no way of knowing how much parent element was present when the sample was formed; they have no way of knowing whether there was any of the daughter element present when the sample was formed; they do not know with certainty if the half-life has always been constant (recent studies indicate that the rate of decay may have been higher in the past, which would lead to higher age estimates); they can not know whether outside forces have altered the amounts of parent and daughter elements in a sample over time. Deviation in any of these factors from what they have assumed can lead to age estimates that are far removed from the actual age of the sample. And this too has been proven, most recently in samples that were obtained after the volcanic explosion of Mt. St. Helens. Actually, there are reliable scientific methods for estimating the age of the earth that have shown the possibility of a young earth, in support of the Biblical creation.
There is a mountain of research which shows that the evidence can support the Biblical creation. One has only to look at it with an open mind. It is the evolutionists, bent on proving a "natural" origin rather than one in which God had a hand, that have the closed minds in this area.
