You appear to be doing apologetics (defense of religion). That requires a different method, and it is certainly not the same as the scientific method.
If you would care to rephrase your post using neutral, rather than anti-evolutionary-loaded terms, and to stick to scientific arguments, I would be happy to address any points you might have.
> "Evolutionists" are generally doing science,
> which requires a particular method.
When I went to school, science was defined as what you could observe, measure and categorize with your five senses.
Scientific theories were posited to explain phenomena to which the abovelisted scientific method could not yet be applied.
Some of these theories have been affirmed, others have been falsified and fallen by the wayside.
Evolutionism, in spite of its many false predictions, tautolical methods, and myriad scandalous frauds, has a life of its own. In many places it operates outside of the scientific method, and is become more of a philosophy, a religion, than a science.
Its more vocal adherents augment that perception by their infantile behavior.
For consideration as a valid science, I would place Evolutionism at least a few steps below Cold Fusion, and perhaps one step above its stepchild, Environmentalism.
I don't have the time or inclination to discuss these things in detail.
If you are sincere, and really wish to explore the facts mitigating against Evolutionism, and to entertain them as things to consider by a thinking person with an open mind, then there are much better and more technical sources than yours truly, and you seem perfectly capable of conducting the research and compiling the results without my help.
.