The problem is that most information that disproves evolution is... well, wrong. You saw how common the mutation misconception is and how easy it is to fall into it. The case is similar for things like the sad strawman of information theory that creationists like to trot out, the global flood hypothesis, and more: all based on flawed understandings or outright denial of facts, motivated by non-scientific goals.<quoted text>
I assume by reliable source you mean "others with like opinions who can give more details".
Because the act of comparing one side of an argument another side that suggests the contrary or offers claims to disprove it is a highly effective method of learning.
As such, I have found that there is as much information to disprove evolution as there is to prove it; and the the people who advocate evolution are seldom of any greater intellectual integrity than the ones who speak against it.
If I were an outsider listening to both creationists and evolutionists, I would consider them both deeply flawed in your understanding.
Your efforts to limit the subjectivity of your conception of reality are eventually futile. Though scientific method is considerably efficient, you limit the scope of your understanding by narrowing your mind to only that which seems convenient.
You have nothing to teach me.
In addition, while popular consensus is not an indication of truth /per se/, scientific consensus is a special case. Scientific consensus is the agreement between the vast majority of experts in the field. While consensus does not mean incontestable, in general, if 99.99% of people that study a subject for years say a particular thing about that subject, then it is probably safe to say that it is as close to true as we are going to get at this moment in time.
Last of all, it should be noted that creationists and evolution proponents are not even close to being on even footing in terms of intellectual integrity. Ted Hovind, famous for holding a degree from patriot bible college and having penned the single worst graduate thesis in the history of ever, and Ray "Banana Man" "I Have Scientific Proof of God" Comfort are both counted among the ranks of creationists, which wouldn't be such a terrible thing if creationists would quit quoting them as if they actually had any authority. The nearest example I can think of on the other side is Richard Dawkins, and his only real flaw is that he's just not a particularly nice person, not anything with his scientific education or research. Further, creationist sources have a very bad habit of misrepresenting information, be it by misquotes, bad research, or worse. AiG and CRM are both examples: look up the "great secret of paleontology" quote by Stephen Gould and see how many of their articles take it as proof that paleontologists are enacting some great conspiracy against God. It's almost painful to look at. While some evolution supporters are surely guilty of the same, they're not nearly as frequent, nor do you tend to see it in popular sources such as TalkOrigins.