Assuming something to be true then using that assumption as a “proof” is the essence of circular reasoning. The issue is not the nature of the evidence, but the honesty of the observer. For example all dating systems assume deep time to be true. One very clear example is dendrochronology or tree ring dating. Bristlecone Pines (BCP) have been cataloged with almost 9,000 continuous rings, adding older dead trees to the rings of living trees. That is presented as “proof” of 9,000 continuous years. Without questioning the almost 9,000 continuous rings, this is assuming one ring=one year. For the past hundred years one ring has equaled one year. Using written human history, we can reasonable assume one ring=one year for over 3,000 years. But a tree ring is a growth/dormant cycle, not a year. In rain forests even today, there can be as many as 6 cycles per year, producing 6 rings per year. Even uniformitarians must admit that the Ice Age had a different climate and dendrochronology would not be valid during the Ice Age. That is circular reasoning. Assume that the Ice Age was at least 10,000 years ago, then assume that dendrochronology is valid for 10,000 years. The Bible records a worldwide flood about 2300-2400 BC. The Ice Age would follow that and last at least 500, perhaps 700 years. During that time period there would be many more growth/dormant cycles per year than the one per year we are observing now.
Every other type of dating of deep time uses the same assumptions. First assume deep time, and then claim that the evidence proves the assumption. What was the original condition of a radiometric sample? There were no observers. You assume the sample to be millions of years old and then use the sample to prove that it is millions of years old.
The point is, everything around us is evidence of a young earth if you are willing to examine the evidence honestly instead of attempting to use the evidence to prove pre-existing assumptions.