This is an age old debate. I'm surprised to see it here once again!
There is undoubtably more evidence for supporting evolution and not creation.
The so called "evidence" supplied by creationists in their argument usually comes in one or both of these two types: a) "evidence" comes from the Bible or b) "evidence" comes from a scientific experiment which has apparently proved that evolution is false. These two arguments are wrong in many respects.
Why are there so many Christian branches? Do they not all interpret the Bible to mean exactly what they wish to believe from it? Yes. The Bible is open to interpretation and it is easy to prove your own version of faith by coming to the Bible with preconceived bias of what you wish to take from it. The Bible cannot be taken literally. It does not contain evidence.
Because one scientific test/experiment et cetera.. Has failed or did not prove what it had intended to prove does not been that science is false. A common source of "evidence" for creationists is one science experiment which proves something they want. They cling to it. Cling. C-L-I-N-G. Desperation. What they don't understand is that true scientific evidence puts constant threat on the evidence itself. Evidence is only accepted by the scientific community after being tested and ridiculed many times over. This is true evidence.