Setting the philosophical questions aside, the two biggest problems for the evolutionists are the absence of transitional fossil forms and the blind-faith assertion that macroevolution has occurred.
Let me get this straight. You admit that you don't have the background or the time to study the evidence for the theory of evolution, and then you say that although you aren't qualified to analyze it and you don't know what the evidence is you know that we don't have evidence?? Talk about blind faith!
We have fossil transitional species and we have genetic evidence that "macroevolution" has occurred, and we have observed mechanisms that allow this. Unfortunately as long as you're getting your information from YEC propaganda you will remain perpetually ignorant of this.
You cannot make absolute statements like the above. The most you can say is, "we believe that fossil transitional species exist based on the fossil record as we see it" and "we believe that we see genetic evidence of macroevolution". There certainly is nothing like unanimous agreement on these two things among scientists. As long as there is serious disagreement and stated objections to your assertions, you must concede that these are not facts, as you allege, but merely your own opinions.
It's called the "Argument From Ignorance."