There's enough context in all of those quotes to support a claim that each of the authors has severe reservations about the possibility of macroevolution, which is all I claim to be demonstrating. Anybody claiming that I'm doing or trying to do anything more than that is lying.
1. There is no context in the quotes for the author's ideas. If you asked any of the evolutionists you quoted if they agreed with your conclusion, they laugh themselves hoarse. Because the quotes you selected do not capture that, you have not provided adequate context.
2. Their "problems" are with a specific aspect of a particular hypothesis about macroevolution. Yet they all would agree that the earth is more than 4 billion years old; that humans and apes share a common ancestor; that dinosaurs were largely wiped out 65 million years ago; that some descendants of dinosaurs evolved into birds; that evolution, comprising (but not limited to) natural selection, mutation, reproductive isolation, and other processes is sufficient to explain the observed flora and fauna of the natural world; and many other propositions that you reject.
They never state that macroevolution does not and did not happen at all, just that it may have happened differently or for different reasons. Your attempts to imply the former from the latter are intellectually dishonest.