===================================================================================
You should inform me? What is your impetus for such evangelism?
Truth? Depends on your definition of truth. We all know that truth, or at least man's understanding of it, cannot be absolute if man is still evolving. But then, individual perspective and relativity are one in the same. What is truth? What difference does it make to an evolutionist? It's all relative anyway. Absolute truth would have to originate outside man's perspective, and anything less than that is just perspective. Yours, mine, and Hitler's view of truth are then of equal weight.
To discount the Biblical account of creationism, the Bible itself must be determined to be a non-historical, or at the very least, an unreliable historical document. Attributing the Bible as mere myth and folklore is at variance with a wide body of scholarly study and research to the contrary. (Ah..no, I won't provide a detailed reference list; try Google.) Christianity is, and has always been a religion of faith based on historical evidence. No Christ = no Christianity. No fulfillment of prophecy = no revelation. If God did not create this world, man, and everything in it as the Bible has claimed, then the Bible is a lie and a false "revelation". In fact, if God has not revealed Himself to man, man certainly will not unveil God by himself, unless of course man becomes like God. And of course, if God cannot control the delivery and veracity of his own revelation, what sort of god is that?
So, for you to declare unequivocally state that "age of a claim has no bearing on the truth value of the claim" and then connect it with the Bible is clearly dagger pointed at the heart of historicChristianity (i.e. not the fake existential stuff). Your rhetorical question regarding the historicity of Christianity and Creation implies that such a notion is novel news to you. "Christianity? Creationism? Historical? Bah, then ignorant primitive." No, you are not that ignorant, and yes, it is a pejorative statement, framed in a nice, "tolerant", open-mind sort of way.
Again, I question your honesty and sincerity, but certainly not your evangelical intent. No amount of historical evidence can convince a person who so firmly, and a priori rejects in any notion of divine revelation, or a divinity apart from man. Juxtaposed: What level of evidence would be required for you to believe in the God of the Bible, that he created man with a specific purpose, or to overthrow entirely the notion that man is merely a genetic variance, an accident of fate, an evolved species? Whatever standard you set, I trust it will be equivocal or unattainable. Otherwise, your faith might be at risk.
You have your faith, and I have mine. Mine is informed by historical fact; yours by an "incomplete" geological record. Yours leads to a pit in the ground after death; mine to eternity. See you on the other side.
SFS