You are the one who is acting childishly. We have excellent transitional sequence of fossils for many many major evolutionary transformations (dinosaurs to birds, deer-like animals to giraffe, land-mammals to whales, fish to amphibians, early apes to humans, early reptile forms to mammals, pre-Cambrian forms to post-Cambrian forms to name a few) that simply did not exist to when Darwin was writing. So its objectively false to state that supposed gaps in the fossil record remain a glaring problem today as it did in Darwin's time. Simple fact. I can demonstrate all these claims if you have a desire to know about them.
I am a scientist and am extremely well-versed in the scientific method. The theory of evolution is as well grounded in science as any theory in physics or chemistry. I say that through direct investigation of the evidence and already existing expertise in how scientific theories are validated. No faith is required here apart from the basic assumptions that all of science makes (that reality is regular, predictable and intelligible and amenable to exploration through rationality and empiricism).
As a practicing Hindu, I do not claim that science can investigate all aspects of reality or can provide definite yes and no answers regarding existence of certain realities that are considered the purview of various religions (at least not yet). But it is very good at what it does, and undoubtedly superior to any other ways of knowing in those fields, and this includes the history of transformations of earth and life within it and the mechanisms by which that has occurred. Every line, even in a graduate textbook of geology or evolution, has evidence backing it that easily runs into thousands of pages worth of extensive and closely analyzed research. I can run through one example if you wish me to, but you will have to apply yourself a little. Most arguments of creationism are deceptions that exploit the fact that most people outside of the scientists who have investigated these things, know little of these deep investigations and are unlikely to pursue them. To decide the truths of scientific facts and theories through websites and popular books is like deciding the culpability of person regarding a certain crime not by the police or the courts but by internet articles and twitter.
All of this is moot however if you believe that no amount of evidence from science can convince you about the reality as described by evolutionary theory (because of something like sin or satan's influence on the intellect and human ability to reason based in observation). If you are of this view then the discussion is pointless as no evidence of science can ever convince you to change what you believe your religious scripture is telling you. If you have pre-decided that all contrary evidence has to be false then what you have is a closed and fixed worldview that cannot change. This would be a pity, but its your choice, and I will respect that.
