Is there any viable, provable evidence for evolution

For your first point, you show your ignorance about the abilities of ordinary floods, and the biblical flood. First off, your statement that 'a single flood event would create at most a few layers of deposition', is sadly not based in reality. You seem to be assuming that the Flood was a calm flood, while in reality, a world-wide flood would have been a violent affair, which would have shifted mass amounts of earth and easily could have made those layers. The Mount St. Helens flood is a modern day example of a violent flood. After that flood, there were many such geological layers that were formed in the flood and the aftermath. Also, the fact that individual species are found in multiple layers back up the flood because a flood would have been a chaotic affair, and one wouldn't be able to expect that everything would line up nice and easy. Also, there is evidence of a world-wide flood. At the bottom of the ocean floor there are vents that force out water from chambers below even the sea. Now, this is evidence for the flood because when the flood happened chambers filled with water under the earth erupted and spewed up water onto the earth, flooding the earth. This is verified by the vents under the earth, and other evidences. For your point of the titalic fish, it does not prove anything, but that a fish micro-evolved to the point where it was walking on its fins on the ocean floor. While there could have been many reasons as why it was best for them to micro-evolve to that point, it does not conclusively prove that sea creatures developed legs. If you look at them, they do not have legs, but merely fins. Also, you have to give me the empirical proof. I am unaware of such proof, and until you actually bring it and prove that it proves what you claim, you still have not done any more than make empty claims. No, you are ignoring that there were trees, lots of them that were not found in coal deposits, but in multiple layers of the fossil record. Therefore, it must have stood for millions of years while it slowly was covered and petrified as it was covered, which obviously could have worked, or it must have been covered and petrified, then unearthed and stood for those millions of years while layers were formed around you. When I said most cultures, I meant early ones. Buddhism is a relatively newer culture (formed around Christianity) and thus would not have a flood story. I apologize, I assumed you would have realized that. I'm also interested how you seem to approve how Buddhism encourages its practitioners to use reason and contemplation to determine truth, but you obviously think that religions are false, which seems to me that you should think that Buddhists don't use reason and contemplation very well, as they are following (what you believe) a completely false religion, and mindset. For your dismissal of the fruit flies point, you are using a completely evolutionist theory to prove evolution. That is arguing in a circle. That would be comparable to me using bible verses to prove the bible is real. You can't do that. Also, your statement that meaningless mutations have no effect on overall Darwinian change contradicts itself. You say later that macro-evolution logically and scientifically follows from micro-evolution. However, mutations are a key point in how micro-evolution works. Therefore, mutations must have an effect on Darwinian change. As I said before, I do not have the burden of a viable counter-theory. Scientific theories are not supposed to be kept after they are proven false. The validity of a criticism of evolution is not dependent on if they are from another alternative. The validity of a criticism is determined on whether it grounded on fact that shows an error in the theory. You base the theories off of the facts, instead of interpreting facts off of theories. Finally, macro-evolution does not logically or scientifically follow from micro-evolution. It seems to, I will give you that. However, it seemed that if one object was heavier than another, it would fall faster. It seemed to logically follow. But it didn't. Just because you want it to follow does not mean it does. (By the way, Galileo did not have any counter-theory in mind when he disproved that objects fall at different speeds, yet he still was able to disprove it, and we would think that anyone who still held to that theory after it was proven was an idiot even though there was no other theory). Also, you have still failed to show any scientific evidence, so it does not scientifically follow.