Am I correct that you are sticking with your "Lord Kelvin's estimate of the age of the earth disproves evolution" claim?
I'm no expert in the field and I'd have to do those calculations myself before I'd try to make a case based on them. Nonetheless arguments based on uranium/thorium dating would appear to be a bit less weighty after reading that than before reading it, and the varve evidence is indisputable.
In short, the scientific establishment does not appear to be on terribly much more solid ground in their pronouncements on the subject of the age of the Earth than Bishop Usher was. The truth has pretty much got to be somewhere in the middle.