I once heard a very interesting parable about a man who went to the doctor complaining "Doctor, Doctor, I'm dead!" The doctor, of course, disagrees with this claim, but the patient insists he is dead. So the doctor proposes an experiment. "If you were really dead, your heart would have stopped, and so you would not bleed. Do you agree?" The patient agrees, and so the doctor takes a needle and pricks the patient's finger. The patient begins to bleed. "There, you see?" Says the doctor. "Yes, Doctor, I do see. I was wrong. Dead men do bleed!"
The story illustrates how we all interpret evidence according to our worldviews. When it comes to Creation vs. Evolution, everyone is looking at the same evidence. Evolutionists do not have access to any facts that Creationists cannot also access. Creationists do not have access to any facts that Evolutionists cannot also access.
This is because science is not something that requires a specific worldview to do. Anyone can do science, and indeed some of the best examples of science have been done by teams of Evolutionists and Creationists working together. Real science is a process of trial and error. Hypotheses are formed and tested. Hypotheses that pass their tests are accepted as being true. Hypotheses that fail their tests are rejected as false. In other words, evidence is used to either confirm or deny a theory.
Not so with Evolution. Just as the dead man went back on his promise to accept he was alive when he could be shown to bleed, so also do Evolutionists never reject Evolution in the face of contrary evidence. Sometimes, contrary evidence was never explicitly predicted, but falsifies a theory nonetheless. This is exemplified by the existence of soft dinosaur tissue. In theory, dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. However, we know that even under optimal conditions (which it should be noted no fossil has ever been found in) soft tissue just doesn't last very long at all. Even one million years is a stretch (pun intended). The logical conclusion when looking at a t-rex bone that is "exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone" (M. Schweitzer) is that it is a slice of "modern" bone. At least, it is modern enough that the soft tissue has not decayed. But the response of Evolutionists, including Schweitzer herself, is to instead question the evidence, not the theory. Some Evolutionists won't even admit that the soft tissue exists, while others admit it exists, but come up with a range of ridiculous theories to explain its mysterious longevity.
Other pieces of evidence were explicitly stated by Evolutionists to be something that would refute the "theory". For example, in 1949, J.B.S. Haldane admitted that Evolution could never create "various mechanisms such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect". Sure enough, we now find magnetic abilities in cows, turtles, salmon, bats, mole rats etc. and wheels in various microorganisms.
Similarly, Bill Nye repeated the common claim that out of place fossils would cause problems for Evolution in the famous debate with Ken Ham in 2014. Although Ham did not present any examples during the debate, many examples can be found. For example, depicting dinosaurs with grass used to be as unforgivable, in the eyes of Evolutionists, as depicting dinosaurs with man. That is, until fossil dinosaur poo was found containing fossil grass. Ducks have been found in the so-called "Cretaceous" period. Sharks have been found right next to tyrannosaurs. Pollen has been found in "Precambrian" strata. Tiktaalik, a supposed precursor to tetrapods, is supposedly younger than some fossil footprints found in Poland. Polystrat fossils span "eras" of rock, and who could forget the so-called Kamikaze ichthyosaur?
Even when Evolutionists say "this evidence will disprove Evolution", the evidence conveniently fails to disprove Evolution when it is found. At this rate, a tyrannosaurus could be found with a man fossilised in its stomach, Evolutionists would sooner resort to claiming time travel will be invented. Evolution, therefore, is not a scientific theory which can be tested by evidence, but is a religion by which evidence is judged.
There is a greater piece of evidence that Evolution is false: The word of the Creator Himself. Moses was not there to observe Creation, but the God who inspired him to write Genesis was. And Moses didn't just say "God told me to write this book". He proved his authority by multiple miracles, as well as God actually visibly showing up before the entire congregation of Israel. Another proof of Moses' authenticity would not manifest itself until 1400 years later: Messianic prophecy. Moses, along with the other prophets, wrote of a coming prophet, who would be just like he was, knowing God face to face. This Messiah eventually did show up, performing all the signs that were foretold. The greatest sign? He was put to death, but did not stay dead. He rose from the grave. All who believe in Him, which is far wiser than believing in stupid stories about monkey men, can be reconciled to our Creator, forgiven of all our sins.