in what order were the gospels written?

we see in the christian bible four gospels: 1 "according to matthew" etcso in what order were they written?
researchers published that the book "acts" must have been written around 55 ad based on the fact that it tells the story until 55 ad therefore the same for matthew which was written by "matthew" mentioned as one of the aposles of jesus... he wrote the parables and teachings as he heard them and then jesus SENT him and the others to teach spreading the faith in that generation. so it must have been written around 35 ad based on the same proof of the book acts until which point does it tell the story... and based on the internal name matthew. similarly john must have been one of the first because the book claims "this is written by me who saw it myslf' also around 35 ad.
however mark was written with different wording often clarifying the wordingh in matthew so based on that comparison it was  MARK A RESPONSE to clarify the ideasin matthew and finally luke written by the same one who wrote acts but as a friend of paularound 50 ad before acts written as above 55 ad so the order
first matyhew and john 35 ad later mark 40 ad then luke 45 ad and last acts 55 ad after most of pauls letters epistles.
now i feel that the gospels are a "universal" book ibncluding two versions for the both groups branches of christians who argues about which date was the crucufixion apparently some christians believed the story in john that jesus was killed on the day of the passover offering and the book included both this and the other version rto be universal for both groups of christyians and then we shouldadmit that one version is a false one we just do not know which... something christians refuse to aadmit both are true and then argue among themselves which date they be;ieve some say like john while mathew version is slaos true while othersbelieve the date in matthew while insisting john mean the same thing jsut donot be "so literal".
well me solution is to only preserve the teachings which are "supported" by both john and mathew and that is almost nothing.
since the fat of the rucifixion is in conflict between john and mathew we should edit each to remove every detail whicc is either in conflicy such as the date and more only the details supported in both john and mattghew should be preserved in one short gospel beginning with jesus with pilate  without the conflicted date both versions should not be preserved and only the details supported in both version sshould be preserved in the updated edited gospel.
if truth would be imprtant to people...