If you agree with each step you can't avoid ditching evolution theory. Which technically doesn't make you creationist of course but let's forget that for now. But this requires you be true with yourself.
STEP 1. (let's see if you agree)
Sometimes if not most of the time the only way to show something doesn't exist is to show it's absence where it is not expected to be absent.
Let's say I claim I have six fingers. If we look in the place where you can't avoid the sixth finger showing itself, then if it is in none of those places there is no avoiding that it does not exist.
So if we search my hands for a six fingered hand but don't find one then it doesn't exist. So like I said, if it's absent then that is the proof it was never there as long as it must be there if it exists.
(step 1 shouldn't be conflated with an argument-from-ignorance where the evidence isn't necessarily expected. We're talking about sure fire stuff.)
STEP 2. If evolution never existed then the only way we can show that is by finding it's absence like with step 1 by looking at an area where it unavoidably must show itself.
So you are now thinking, "how can you provide an example where evolution had to be there but isn't?"
I will now explain how.
An Icthyosaur was a sea-dwelling reptile. Would you agree that it can't have evolved BEFORE reptiles had evolved from amphibians since it was a reptile and none would have existed at that stage? Would you agree it can't have evolved during or after the time we find fossils of Icthyosaurs? If so then you agree with me that there has to be a WINDOW OF TIME where it MUST have evolved. That is to say, it is the only possible window of time where it could have evolved if it did. Agree?
So we have established it MUST have evolved in a certain window of time. There can be no escape from this because evolutionists cannot say that this would be wrong. So we know WHEN it had to evolve.
If we now look at that window of time (as I have already done). Like with the sixth finger, I couldn't find any evolution of an Icthyosaur.
So let's look for the WINDOW of time for when pinnipeds had to have evolved. (seals, walruses, dugongs, manatees, etc).
When I looked at this window of time in the fossil record, I found many animals fossilised but I found no evolution of pinnipeds. Indeed, the first sign of them is the already, "fully evolved" stage, like with the Icthyosaurs.
Let's look at more windows;
Between the Permian and Triassic we should see the transitionals for lizards?. We don't! Pre-bat transitionals had to have evolved after mammals had evolved from reptiles, so between the Triassic and the Tertiary we expect to see how bats became bats, through transitionals leading to bats, we don't BUT we do see many fossils preserved in the Triassic and Tertiary including bats, full designed for flight.
Now here is the thing, there are many windows that overlap, so it makes the fossil problem even worse because it's not as though you could expect a complete absence of evolution of many forms in one era. They should be there like the sixth finger. (like finding a GROUP of people claiming to have six fingers, but none of them do)
Evolution is reasonably absent. You won't find one difficult anatomy that became something VERY different, represented in the fossil record in terms of proving there was a viable route to that new phenotype.
It doesn't matter what scientists say or the size of their education, this is exactly what you would expect if macro-evolution never existed. This is deductive-reason, not guesswork. These are the very rules of logic showing us that the claims of Darwin are not matched. Whatever they tell you is the evidence of evolution is NOT the evidence of evolution. Finding the evolution of these animals in the fossil record would be THE evidence for evolution, and it is absent because evolution did not create lifeforms, God did.
