Ok Pete... you seem to understand the basics of what I am supporting in favor of evolution and even understand what my complaints about your arguments against evolution entail.
Now, what we seem to have at rock-bottom is your assertion that both are basically 'beliefs': and that there is at least 'some' evidence for biblical stories, which you feel balances my evidence for evolution.

(and by the way, you need a different word.. "evidence" is not usually considered a verb. You don't 'evidence' something.)

In both your system & mine, claims need data. Clear & obvious data from various reputable sources are **good** evidence. The word I will use for the moment is that lots of data giving good evidence supports a theory, whether you call it 'belief' or not.

If I had hours..(and thought it would help)... I could describe various everyday activities where both you & I make assumptions and act on them with little doubt about the underlying 'beliefs' one needs to make decisions about their ..ummm... validity, reproducibility, etc. If I could play Socratic method with you, you'd agree that certain things made sense....... yet, when it comes to evolution, you deny the very reasoning that you accept about other things! This notion that because 'the past' can't be continuously observed & tested, any logical inferences we make about it are 'only' theories and beliefs, and thus no better than various religious theories & beliefs is just...... I am at a loss- (I'm sure Steve & Shimrod would supply a word). I'll pick for the moment 'deluded'. You are defending one set of theories-- the religious ones-- by attempting to reduce the status of the scientific ones so that it's purely personal what one chooses.
(Yes.. I know you make certain attempts to justify & support religious beliefs on their own, but you break all sorts of solid, accepted rules of logic & 'evidence in doing so... and when I challenge you, you just equivocate about the language used!)
So... as long as you operate from a totally different and VERY subjective set of premises about 'evidence' and 'proof' and 'belief', there's very little I can say. Your basic, rock-bottom thesis IS circular, as you **implicitly** use certain of your premises to define & support your conclusions. By denying standard values for scientific methods, you have locked yourself into a pattern that cannot be dealt with by those of us who know & understand WHY science & logic work.... and why they must be followed and why errors in them are gradually self-correcting.

I can tell you that my image of myself right now is of a bruised & bloody forehead from beating my metaphorical head against a wall... :>).