Why So Surprised?
This site is a resource offering more resources. The articles come from different authors (and I even write a few myself), and there are links from the excerpts to the full articles. From there, seekers can browse those sites for additional information. Also, there are many links to creation science sites so people can continue to search and learn.
You can use that material to see how evolutionists are constantly being confronted with observations that do not comport with their naturalistic presuppositions and worldview. Instead of realizing that Occam's Razor applies (restated, the simplest explanation is probably the best one) and that God is the Creator, they bulk up their speculations with further speculations and end up with a complicated jumble in which they put their faith. And the discoveries that support Genesis just keep rolling in.
Some of these items are listed at "Findings That Comport With Genesis".The history of the world and its life could hardly be more different between the Bible’s account and that of modern evolutionary naturalism. Some recent scientific reports fit with a designed, recent creation, and do not fit with evolution.According to Genesis, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” The world and its life was created in six normal days not that long ago (thousands, not billions of years). Each animal and plant reproduces after its kind. The original perfect world was cursed due to sin. A global Flood destroyed the air-breathing animals, except for survivors on Noah’s ark. The descendents of Noah dispersed around the globe rapidly after God’s judgment on the Tower of Babel. Evolutionists mock at these accounts, but will have trouble with some recent findings that are puzzling for their world view, but not for Biblical creation. The findings involve negative evidence against evolution, and positive evidence for creation. It’s not that secularists are unable to come up with rationalizations, but findings should fit, rather than surprise, one’s worldview. In science, the fewer “auxiliary hypotheses” needed to force a finding into one’s web of belief, the better.