How can evolution be true if there are no between-stage fossils? (+ 1 more question)

First of all, giraffes did not come from zebras and that is why there is no fossil in between. That is obvious so why would you use a nonexistant sample for evidence? Secondly, scientific research has shown that even minute mutations in DNA can create large macroscopic mutations. Therefore, large changes can happen between similar species. Also, conditions must be perfect for a skeleton to become a fossil. Some stages may have been lost forever or just not found yet. This still leaves a lot of questions that research hasn't been able to answer yet. However, pointing out the faults of evolution does nothing to prove that creation science is valid.
Your second question beautifully portrays the fault at the heart of creation science. You already have the goals, you are simply trying to find the means. You know what you answers are already, so you search for evidence that helps your arguement and ignore evidence that doesn't. On top of that, your evidence purely consists of the faults of evolution, many of which (like the one above), stem from an incomplete understanding of the topic. You WANT to believe that creation is true and you are desperate to make it look scientific so that you may compete with evolutionists on an educated level. However, creationism is not empirical and therefore can never be a science. Empirical science collects evidence first and draws conclusions after it has the evidence to support it. Creationism is a faith that comes from the writings of men. What people say happened is never taken as evidence in the scientific world, any experiment is retested many times by many people before it can be considered evidence. Therefore keep your beliefs in the church where they belong and out of the scientific community.