Why we must never equate Hadith with Quran

The often repeated flawed logic where it is argued by the Hadith heavy sects that since both the Quran and Hadith were passed on to us by the same group of people hence both must be equal in importance and or that the preservation of the meaning of the Quran is somehow tied to these people is obviously just that, flawed.

The first flaw would be that unlike the Quran, less than a dozen scattered reports out of several thousand can be classified equal to the evidence of the Quranic standard. As per the rules of "science of Hadith" each and every verse of the Quran will have to be and is classified as mutawatir bil lafz and Sahih. When you compare this to the reports ascribed to the Prophet of God, we find that less than a dozen can be classified as mutawatir and even less when you add the Sahih condition to it and finally close to half a dozen when you add bil lafz (verbatim).

The second flaw in the argument is that God explicitly took upon Himself to preserve the Quran and not any other source of our Deen. This fact remains intact in spite of the new slogan of "why would God preserve the Quran and not its meaning". To assume that Hadith literature gives meaning to the words of God is not only theologically problematic but also historically plain wrong. Not to mention the fact that the premier compilation of Bukhari is completely silent on a full 28 chapters of the Quran with these words " No hadith were mentioned here", if the meaning of 28 chapters can be understood without the supposed preservation of the meaning, I think it is safe to say we will manage without it for the rest as well.. Poor logic can be exposed with minimum effort. Sadly logic is not at the top of the agenda of most traditionalists, subjugation is. 

Here is the complete list of Surah Bukhari washed his hands off, some explanation indeed; 23, 27, 29, 35, 51, 57, 58, 64, 67, 69, 70, 73, 76, 81, 82, 86, 88, 89, 90, 94, 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, and 109

The third clear flaw is that if both were to be considered equal in any terms then why is it that the Quran was passed on to us verbatim by the same group of people (I say, group, because it was not always the same players, very important to note) but the same group mysteriously had bouts of memory leaks while reporting the Hadith.

The fourth flaw is that there are no contradictions in the Quran and scores in the Hadith literature. This particular point can be demonstrated with ease in spite of the traditionalist's word twisting and subjectivity by focusing on those reports that reference measurable quantities or clearly distinguishable elements like left and right, 10 or 13 etc.

The fifth obvious thing to note is misdirection in the claim hence the question; if one were to assume that the plan was to use the same people to preserve the Quran and Hadith then why didn't the Prophet Pbuh use Abu Hurairah or Anas ibn Malik or Abdullah ibn Umar or his wife Aisha to write down the Quran ? After all more than half of Bukhari's compilation consists of these four.