What ever means God used was by definition a process. The real question is whether we accept the abracadabra process (Yes, it is a real word of Aramaic origin with foundations in biblical theology) or a more detailed process involving the physics God gave us the intellect to observe and understand.
The 64 thousand dollar question is whether the "abracadabra process" is really a the more scientific process accelerated to a rate that you are not able to parse and comprehend. In that case we are both right.
No, the real issue is that your 'more detailed process involving the physics God gave us the intellect to observe and understand' is a logical fallacy. First of all, naturalism is assumed and then the fallacy of affirming the consequent is invoked to 'support' evolution from observations. This eliminates all objectivity and empiricism from the 'process'. It's a philosophical choice.
Never mind that you don't understand that the information documented in a living organism is independent of the 'physics God gave us'. You know, like information recorded as ink on paper is independent of the 'physics God gave us'. Biological information is of the same quality.
"The 64 thousand dollar question is whether the "abracadabra process" is really a the more scientific process accelerated to a rate that you are not able to parse and comprehend. In that case we are both right."
Nope. The 'scientific process' is a logical fallacy by definition. It assumes naturalism and then defines all observation in terms of naturalism, this is a logical fallacy.