Education

That is part of the issue. THe 'creationist' says there are problems that there are not. For example, you mention "No transitional fossils". That claim is misinformation, because hundreds of transitional fossils have been discovered When this is explained, and detailed examples given, the information is ignored by the creationist, who repeats their claim, just as if the information was never relayed to them at all.I have noticed that even when an argument has been shown to be false, that same arguement gets brought up repeatedly. This seems to be a discognitive dissidence where information that does not match preconcieved notions it dismissed.Many people do not understand what evolution actually is. They keep on asking for 'evidence' about things that evolution does not predict. They keep on attempting to raise the bar on the evidence. Many people who are creationist reject evolution because it doesn't answer 'where the first cell came from'. That question is irrelavent to evolution, because it deals with how life changes through generations.Before you can demonstrate the accuracy of a theory, you first have to understand what the theory is. A scientific theory is never 'proved'.
What happens is that the scientists uses investigation and tests to try to disprove it. After over 150 years of trying, more and more evidence has come in to substantiate the theory, and no one has shown anyway to falsify it.

Well, no.Evolution does not make predictions about how many fossils will be found at all. Nor does it make a prediction on how many 'transtional' fossils are there. You seem to be under the misconception that things are sudden. When there are splits in species, the two species are originally very hard to tell apart. It is only through genetic isolation from each other, and many generations that distinguishing features can be seen. If you couple this with the fact fossilization is quite rare, you won't get any predictions on how many fossils would be found. What IS predicted is that there will a 'morphing' of certain features of the fossils as different attributes get selected for.It is the fossils that were part of the evidence that gave rise to the idea there was evolution (Before Darwin btw). The theory of evolution has given some predictions to the shape of fossils vs their age.. and predicts that there won't be any drastic changes, bur rather gradual changes in existing structures. It does not make a prediction on the numbers of fossils.For example.. the concept that there would be small changes and morphology vs age was developed before the whale fossils were discovered. When the fossils were found, the pattern of small changes adding up through the different ages being accumulative was confirmed with the observation of the whale skeletons vs the age of the skeletons. The same can be observed about horse evolution too.Here is an article about whale evolution The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent EvidenceAnd here is an article about Horse evolution
Horse Evolution

Not true... unless you say that god is a deceiver god that makes the evidence LOOK like something else.The YEC are demonstratively wrong about the age of teh earth, on the insistance there was a global flood, and on much that has been discovered about biology, geology, and physics.The OEC's that attack evolution can be shown to be demonstraviely wrong on the many of the basis's that they do attack evolution on.They are demonstraviely wrong about dino tracks and human tracks being side by side in pauluxy.When it comes to I.D., they are demonstraively wrong when it comes to things being 'irreducably complex', and on the 'information and complexity'.The OEC's can not be demonstraively wrong.. but then again, many if not most of them will accept evolution in some form or another. They
just feel that God had a direct hand into how evolution works. That
belief is not testable though.