Actually, thinking about it... no. Why would there be?
The only events I can think of where only the first-born children were killed aren't events that occurred naturally, nor are they far enough back to be part of the fossil record. What we should see is a spate of graves containing the bodies only of children and teens from a single point in Egyptian history, and of male infants in ancient Bethlehem.
However, we have found neither of those during archaeological excavations of either culture. The closest we have come is a mass grave found in ancient Egypt, which proponents of "Biblical history" claim is a mass grave representing the death of the first-born because all the bodies in the graves are young.
Other archaeologists note the grave is only filled with the bodies of males, that all the remains are from males of enlistment age for the Egyptian military, that many of the remains show signs of violence (cuts and fractures in the bones), and that the grave also contains the remains of broken weapons and armor... so chances are it's a grave in which soldiers were buried.
What we *should* find in the fossil record is a thick, undifferentiated layer of fossil remains that also include a massive amount of human remains. Just above that, we should find a complete void of fossils worldwide, then a slowly increasing radiation of fossil remains, stemming from a central point located somewhere in Turkey, throughout the fossil layers laid down after "the flood".
We don't find that either, though.
In fact, we find no evidence of a massive flood at all. There is no thick worldwide layer of graded material laden with fossils from all different points in history prior to this one at any location on the planet. There are dozens of different layers set one upon the other in very distinct bands in no specific order of gravity (in other words, we find layers of lighter, finer sediment below layers of heavier, rougher sedimentation).
There are beds of fossilized coral sandwiched between beds of coal, indicating that areas of land slowly sank below water level (coal is formed when decaying swamp matter is buried by sedimentation and compressed) and then rose back out and sank back down again (an action which would kill the coral bed that formed during the time the area was underwater, and then kill the plant material that accumulated during the period the area was out of water).
There are large mountains of chalk, which is only possible to make under exceptionally slow and gentle conditions because even if the cocolithophores whose skeletons make up half the chalk could reproduce faster, their skeletal remains are too light to settle out of anything but the gentlest of circulating solutions such as shallow lagoons protected from tides, let alone violent flood currents.
There are successive chains of animals branching up through the geological record, always beginning with those pesky "transitional forms" that aren't supposed to exist, such as the tiktaalik, acanthostega, the cynodonts, archaeopteryx, shenzouraptor, sapeornis, sinonyx and pakicetus, etc...
You know what I've never heard of there being any evidence for, though?
I've never seen or heard of anyone being able to point to even a single observed example of a lifeform just spontaneously appearing through supernatural means. You would think if people were objecting to the Theory of Evolution because of a lack of verifiable evidence, they would also object to Creationism because it has never been observed, either.
* * *
Stick with your name, krazy. It suits you. Science confirms the Bible? First, you're confusing the Big Bang with the explosions you can see. The two are nothing alike. Modern explosions involve, among other things, the emission of photons in wave form. That's why they're bright, because that's what light is: the emission of photons in wave form. That didn't start being produced until about a hundred fifty million years after the Big Bang at the earliest. The Universe was born in darkness.
As for the Bible saying the Universe is fourteen billion years old... chapter and verse, please?
Come to it, are we talking about the same Bible? Because I'm thinking of the one that says there are birds with four legs (wrong), the sky has water above it (wrong), the Earth is a flat disc (wrong) that sits on pillars (wrong), that its atmosphere circulates north to south (wrong), that pi equals exactly three (wrong), that the moon emits its own light (wrong), that birds came before amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and all land insects (wrong), etc...
Neither Creationism nor the Theory of Evolution are axioms, and the core difference between the two is that the Theory of Evolution is dependent on the evidence for its current shape, while Creationism depends on reshaping the evidence.
And no... the evidence cannot be (or rather, has yet to be) correctly interpreted to fit the Creationist model. Something else I have yet to see is a single instance where a Creationist has the facts in his or her argument correct.