It's great to question the theories but
Focus on disproving a theory like evolution does not automatically prove another theory right (for example creationism). It should take more than early dismissal of new theories to prove a long standing theory right.
It seems that whatever new theory comes along it has to be proved scientifically(evolutionists & creationists alike), even when Science
and scientific method itself is still "evolving", but when looking at the roots of long standing theories the same proof protocol does not seem to apply. There’s seems to be a need for a “default theory” – and some form of creationism seems to take that role for many people (historically).
Perhaps if cultures like early Egyptian survived/expanded its theory of creation would be one of the leading views (it still is by some people).
Maybe if going to an even earlier chronological layer we would find other sound theories. But today we want physical proof, evolutionists, creationists and many other groups all the same.
Evolutionists want physical evidence of bible stories like adam and garden of eden.
Creationists want physical evidence of clear signs of evolution.
This can prove to be a difficult and at times misleading task. Especially when the best we can do is to capture a still image of a continuous process that is vastly greater and longer than our humbling & comparably short lifetime span.
To say evolution does not occur (or any form of evolution which goes against creationism) you would need to step out of the process itself. This goes along things like saying that the earth is flat and now we can step away from earth and see it isn’t.
The complexity with evolution theory is that it is time based process with long and short term environmental factors impacting on the genetic composition of species. With such a short lifetime span and historical data it is currently impossible to 100% prove that evolution is occurring.
Evolutionists however extrapolate based on bits of information. But many people may only believe this theory if they were to live through millions of years on earth and it all unraveling.
The same goes for biblical counts. Unless we are physically transported into those days and experience and live in that era, there will always be a thread to pick up on and run to disprove the theory.
Taking time out of the equation certainly eases people into a theory. Time is a fantastic variable that seems to be out of reach and our brains may have a tough time processing it (unlike spatial dimensions which our brains seem to have grounded themselves on). We feel the power of time yet we have a “hard time” grasping its nature.
So saying that earth in unchanged since the "dawn of time" is easier to comprehend than any other time based theories (especially slow processes like evolution which is beyond our lifespan).
When we think inside our box we will only be able to estimate without 100% certainty of what the box looks like from the outside. Without 100% certainty (and even with) there will always be other theories trying their best guesses.
Learning about the other theories will shed light on opposing ones; however there will be a good missed chance to grow and learn about the actual grounds of our beliefs if we keep focusing on discrediting other opposing theories (to leave our beliefs untouched). Maybe then we'll be able to step out of the box and get a different view.