@rtmcdge I think the problem is that you have been studying apologetics and equating that with science. Apologetics is not science, I think you must understand the difference?
Here’s an example: Have you heard of Neil Shubin? He and other noted a gap in the fossil record between fish and land-walking tetrapods. Shubin and team hypothesized that fossil with transitional features between fish and tetrapods should exist. They searched geology records for rocks of the correct age and environment where such a creature might have lived. After several years of searching, they discovered a new type of fossil creature with the sort of transitional feature they predicted. We now know this fossil as Tiktaalik**.
This constitutes an experiment in paleontology based on a prediction from Common Descent evolution. First a hypothesis (what to find), then a prediction (where to find), then gathering data, and finally a confirmation of the hypothesis.
I could go on, mentioning lots of other predictions based on evolution, inventions and patents based on the theory, new medical treatments, and more. We could discuss if you like, but you ignored my previous effort to engage you on the subject. I see no need to spend time educating you if you won’t pay attention.
** I know AiG has articles claiming Tiktaalik is a fish which is true, but it is a fish with some features of a tetrapod, which meets the hypothesis.