Kudos for
@leroy for coming up with a very good thread about evolution. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory and therefore has to be testable.
In the same vein this is a thread where we would like to hear creationists try to explain what would refute creationism? And please no glib answers. What you this thread requires you to do is to come up with a hypothesis for creationism and tell us what test based upon the hypothesis's predictions would refute it.
If you can think up of a proper model and a proper test then you can claim to have evidence for creationism. In case people forgot:
Scientific evidence is
evidence that serves to either support or counter a
scientific theory or
hypothesis
Scientific evidence - Wikipedia
To claim to have evidence for a scientific idea one first needs a testable model. Some hints, concepts that ha were known before the formation of the test do not count as a valid test. What you are doing then is forming an ad hoc explanation. Evolution has a bit of an unfair advantage here because so many concepts that we now know to be true could have refuted the theory when it first came out. We are able to use those as evidence. Since we know more now than we did in Darwin's day that means some of your tests may not be valid.
I know. It seems unfair, but nothing stopped creationists from making tests in the past. I do not think that they should be able to make ad hoc explanations simply because the scientists on your side never did a lick of work.