Awwwww, I'm so sorry! But you see, that's precisely the problem. You're using a religious framework to evaluate science, which doesn't work: scientists don't receive neat hundred-year chronologies on stone tablets. We have a great deal of evidence, but it looks very different.
You can't use religious arguments to critique science. But just the same, I can't use science to critique religion (unless you can somehow find a way to give me a testable claim, which I doubt you're clever enough to do).
You see, you're not just ignorant of science. You're also wrong on theological grounds -- and that's why I attack your theology with Augustine and Maimonides, not with Darwin or Gould.
You attacked also with Luther and have you given me any substantiating evidence for this? No. Did I ask? Yes. Like I said, you cherry pick your data and try to present it as this neat little package that backs up your claims, but actually it really is what you would call crap. Not only looks it but smells like it.