If evolution adequately explained soup-to-humans, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
I think we would, actually.
No matter how compelling the evidence is for something, there is always some zealot who is capable of arguing against it. Whether the evidence falls into your lap and convinces YOU, is the question. You are saying it doesn't convince YOU - nothing else. Then, (like all Christian Creationists) you go and admit that you haven't really bothered looking at the evidence. Why would that be, exactly? Are you too busy reading books by Behe, and reading up on bogus attacks on Evolution? I can see how that would all take up one's time.
I said above, that it's a bit strange that a God would leave life languishing in the bacterial phase for 2 billion years. You've actually admitted that this would be a bit strange, too, by (a) dodging, and (b) stating that you can't be bothered reading any real scientific research on whether the Earth is actually 4.5 billion years old. Therefore, you do actually have something to follow up on, to fault ID, but choose not to.
The reason you choose not to, is, well, there's always another reason to attack Evolution, so why bother with the finer details? Why not leave everything hanging? Who cares if the fine tuned argument can be solved by having infinity sequential universes, or evolving universes? It's probably all bollocks, because you have faith that some kind of BibleGod is true, in some way, which you can't spell out, or prove (even in a non-rigorous way). You are the pioneer in your own hypothesis, which you have no evidence for, and have not properly researched. But, you draw heavily
on suppositions from other creationists whom you do not agree with, anyway.
It's all a sort of vague mush, that you keep hanging in the air, like a juggler.
To come down to your standards, scientists would have to invent the entire fossil record, and predict that they would further find fossils to fill in the gaps of their invention.
You state that argument to the future
is a fallacy. It certainly is, if you've got NOTHING. If scientists were arguing that one day, they would find a fossil and prove that all life had evolved sequentially, then it would be a fallacy. But, as it happens, all scientific theories have an assumption that the theory will be validated by further evidence. Inherently, it's not a fallacy, because any correct theory can likely be validated by future evidence. It's a guess that a theory cannot be validated. The guess gets more ridiculous, as the theory gets stronger, and the information the guesser has is just self delusion.
What leaks through your sieve, is that Bible creation story can be refuted, just by looking at the text. The sun was not created on the 4th day. If you can't spot that, then you are the type of person that will keep arguing, to hold up his faith.