The evidence is always the same. It is the interpretations that differ.
While I can not join with most Creationist in labeling evilution as a religion it is most certainly a belief system and no more valid than mine. Creationists choose not to put their faith in the decades of research of men but in a single volume that has yet to require correction (because it is written by God).
Careful scrutiny of the evidence indicated to me that it was not noble objective seekers of truth that established evilution. The "evidence" in nearly every case if discovered today would have to be rejected. This is particularly true of human evilution. On a broader scale recent repeatable experiments in stratigraphy and sedimentology overturn at least the first three principals used to date rock layers. Radiometric dating has proven hugely unreliable and is based on uninformataian assumptions that are not in the least scientific. In as much as the debate seems to center on time, the evidence evilution is standing on is rapidly eroding and yet another correction will have to be made.
You forgot to credit AnswersinGenesis and the other creationist websites. You have their talking points down pretty well.
Unfortunately they, and you, are wrong from the start.
The evidence is not all the same; it supports some interpretations (explanations) far better than others. The only way you can support the creationist viewpoint is to ignore most of the scientific evidence and misrepresent or distort the rest. That is exactly what creation "science" does best.
Your reference to the theory of evolution as "evilution" is strictly creationist propaganda. Scientific theories are value neutral. What you really meant to say is that the theory of evolution contradicts your particular minority interpretation of scripture and/or revelation or whatever it is upon which you base your beliefs.
Your statement that the bible is "a single volume that has yet to require correction" reflects your particular belief system; it does not reflect the facts as they are known in the real world. As just one example, the "global flood" about 4,350 years ago has been contradicted by scientific evidence since the early 1800s. Numerous fields of science have piled up huge mountains of evidence that that flood never happened. My own archaeological research documents that as well. You might believe it happened, but that does not make it true.
Answering another point: the evidence for the theory of evolution has only grown stronger over the years. The recent findings of genetics have solidified the case that was begun with fossils and other early evidence.
Answering another point: human evolution continues to fill in details each year. The fossils are now being supplemented and surpassed by genetic studies. The evidence still points in the same direction: Darwin was right all along.
Experiments in stratigraphy and sedimentology etc. Only to creationists.
Radiometric dating etc. Only to creationists. There are a number of posters familiar with the various forms of radiometric dating here. Find one of the threads and have a go if you think you have evidence. My particular favorite is radiocarbon dating, and I have done nearly 600 dates in my archaeological career as well as written on the subject. If you have any evidence that the method is inaccurate find the appropriate thread and present it. (But if all you have is the standard creationist talking points--don't bother to waste our time. We've refuted those hundreds of times.)
The evidence evilution is standing on is rapidly eroding etc. In creationists' dreams.
If this is the best you can do you won't be very happy here. There are a lot of educated and literate posters here who will be happy to help you understand where you are going wrong--in considerable detail. And if all you have are the standard AnswersinGenesis talking points you won't fare well at all.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
™ Version 4.2
