This is true. However, you do need to realise that it is also based on evidence. If you are going to attempt to refute evolution, you need to be aware that the evidence exists, and to be able to demonstrate how it has been misinterpreted. If you don’t have any training in the relevant sciences, you will espouse arguments that are demonstrably incorrect, and this will only highlight your lack of understanding. That is not a good witness for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It’s what Paul talks about when he tells us to avoid foolish controversies in Titus 3:9.
Basically: (a) make sure you know what you are talking about, and (b) make sure your facts are straight.
Again, evidence.
We don’t necessarily need to see evidence to affirm creation, the flood, miracles, the resurrection etc. Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, and in fact faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. (Hebrews 11:1).
However, if you favour one particular creation model (e.g. young earth) over another, you need to be able to account for any evidence that contradicts it. As it stands, the only way that the earth can be six thousand years old is if it were created with evidence for 4.5 billion years of history that never happened. Personally I do not believe that God would create evidence that deceives us, especially not concerning aspects of a subject about which, as I said earlier, the Bible leaves a lot wide open to interpretation.
Again, you need to make sure you understand the science properly before you attempt to refute it, so that you don’t end up bringing the Body of Christ into disrepute by spouting demonstrable untruths.