Important note:
For reasons I now understand quite clearly, there are disputes within the Christian community as to whether or not it is acceptable to watch shows like Dexter. These disputes may distract from the point being made. Personally, as I was not a Christian when I watched these particular episodes, I was not thinking about these disputes. As I have seen them, however, I am able to make the point, and seeing the show is not necessary to understand the point. Therefore, I ask that such disputes do not distract from the point. Thank you.
In the second series of the crime drama "Dexter", the titular character meets Lila West, a.k.a. Lila Tournay, a particularly twisted woman who would go on to cause him several problems. Eventually, Dexter broke up with Lila, who soon seduced Dexter's friend, Angel Batista. She framed him by enticing him to have sex with her, after which she ran to the bathroom to take rohypnol, otherwise known as the "date rape drug". She fell unconscious, and Batista took her to the hospital, where she proceeded to charge him with rape.
In this scenario, there were two competing stories. On the one hand, you have Lila's story. She claimed Angel drugged and raped her. A medical expert would be able to detect rohypnol in her system, as well as possibly recover some of Angel's semen, which may be present on her clothes, the outside of her body, and maybe even in the room where they slept together. She would also have shown bruising from the fall after taking the drug. On the other hand, you have Angel's story. The sex was entirely consensual, after which Lila went to the bathroom, where Angel found her unconscious, and convulsing on the floor.
Unlike Lila's story, Angel's would have been backed by other witnesses. Dexter could testify to breaking up with Lila, and to her mental instability, as well as to her promise to drop the charges against Angel if Dexter took her back. Debra (Dexter's adopted sister) could testify to not only warning Angel against dating Lila, but warning Dexter beforehand. Masuka (Angel's coworker) could testify to hanging out with Angel and Lila. Lila herself would likely contradict her own story if asked enough questions.
In this case, the scientific evidence would be consistent with both stories. Such is the problem with historical science. A scientist can always say "I see", he can rarely say "I saw". He can say "I see rohypnol in Lila's system", he cannot claim "I saw Angel spike Lila", or "I saw Lila drug herself". The evidence fits both stories.
The origins debate works the same way. We have two stories, we have the same evidence, the question is how we interpret this evidence. A scientist can say "I see this fossil", they cannot say "I saw this fossil form over millions of years", or "I saw this fossil get buried in the flood". The evidence is compatible with both views, and so it is not sufficient to prove either. In order to prove either story correct, there would need to be evidence that only fits one.
Going back to Angel and Lila, let's add another element. We are no longer basing our case entirely on the strength of witness testimony. Instead, we're going to pretend a very protective Debra Morgan was suspicious enough of Lila to put a bug in Angel's pocket. The whole time Lila seduces Angel and sleeps with him, Debra is recording every word. This evidence is only compatible with Angel's story. The audio recording would show Lila enticing Angel to have sex with her, the sex itself, and the scene where Angel finds Lila in the bathroom afterwards. Lila could not explain this evidence against her claim that Angel drugged and raped her.
So what could Evolutionists find that would cause their religion to prevail over Christianity? Actually, nothing. Evolution, by its very nature, would require more time than any scientist has. But Christianity has something much like Debra's hypothetical bug: The historical record. History shows many things that should not be the case if Evolution is true, or even just if Christianity is false.
Chief among these is the resurrection of Christ. If anything refutes the atheistic creation myth, it is the testimony of the Creator Himself, and through His resurrection, among other things, Jesus certainly verified His claims to be exactly that. But the point of the resurrection wasn't to prove the origins of this world, but to buy the faithful an eternal inheritance in the next. We all sin, as did Adam, and so we deserve God's wrath, but Jesus took that on our behalf. If we confess Him as Lord and believe God raised Him, we will be saved.