Since according to the theory of evolution, natural selection requires millenia to perform its magic, then I would say the point is moot since neither I nor you will be around on this earth to believe anything at that point. :)
While I believe that it is "possible" that God created the earth through the process of evolution, like someone already said, it's hard to imagine God creating a human being like Adam that way.
If you study creation science, all of the "proof" of evolution actually has been responded to and debunked.
I am not an expert on the subject myself, but there are books that go into the many points of evolution and offer a creation response.
One specifically I remember is that carbon dating, which is used to back up the idea that the earth is billions of years old, has also been used on articles of which the specific age is known. The carbon dating method gave results that were false.
Creation Science explains that carbon dating works by determining the amount of carbon in the item. This does not take into acount the fact that most things arleady contain carbon.
Another evidence used to back up evolution, is the layers of earth and the fossils found in those layers. However, if you believe in the Biblical account of the flood, those layers are also easily explained.
There is also signifigant lack of a fossil trail from ape to man (the so-called missing link). It's hard to imagine that if evolution were true, at least one of these inbetween creatures about to evolve into a human being would not have been found.
The fossil trail that has been found is believed to have been created from parts of different creatures.
A little research and an open mind and study of creation science may change your mind.
Better go back and study your science. Carbon dating has absolutely nothing to do with the determination of the age of the earth. Carbon dating is only useful to date objects up to about 40 thousand years old. The half-life of C-14 is too short to allow dating much beyond that age. Furthermore, carbon dating doesn't use the total amount of carbon in the object, but rather the ratio of the amount of the radioactive carbon 14 isotope to the stable carbon 12 isotope. It applies only to objects that were once alive. It can be used to date the death of that object. While alive, organisms replace the carbon 14 that decays with fresh carbon 14 from the environment. Once dead, this exchange stops and the carbon 14 decays at a known rate. The ratio of C-14 to C-12 in a living organism is the same as that in the environment as a whole and is known. This ratio declines as the C-14 decays and therefore this ratio provides a measure of the time since the death of the organism. For rocks and other older objects, similar techniques are used, but with different isotopes which decay more slowly. None rely on the total amount of a given element, but rather on the ratio of a radioactive isotope to a stable one. While there have been cases where radiometric dating has yielded incorrect results, these were generally cases where an old sample was contaminated by younger material (or vice-versa). Typically ages determined by separate techniques give similar results, which lends credibility to the dating methods.
About the only correct sentence in your post was your admission that you are not an expert yourself.
For example carbon dating is only used up to a few tens-of-thousands of years. Other dating techniques are used for older rock, and different techniques give correlating results that show the earth to be around 4 billion years old. If your religion doesn't like that then your religion has a problem, not science.
Another example: Flood geology completely fails to explain observations of the geological column and fossil deposition. If you don't believe this try googling for Glen Morton. He used to be a young earth creationist like yourself who actually wrote creationist "scientific" papers but he got a job as a geologist and found that all he had been taught by the flood geologists was lies that did not agree with the data.