Evolution has been established and observed. Ham's half-baked assertions have not.
The facts are that the Earth about 750,000 times older than Ham supposes. The life on it is about 615,000 times older than Ham asserts. He has absolutely no evidence to support his claims of a young Earth.
Speciation has been observed both in the lab and the field.
Beyond that evolution can be inferred from the fossil record, homology, genetics, shared proteins, etc.
You have been provided with evidence for evolution in all these ways and more. You have been unable to support creationism or effectively refute the evidence for evolution.
Both you and Ham have the same problem. You need to provide a better explanation for the evidence based on science. Evolution is established theory, meaning it explains this evidence. Creationism isn't even a well-formulated, testable hyphothesis.