Evolution is a coherent theory with significant amounts of data to establish its veracity.

You are quite right, I should have not included God. I was just making a comparison. Just to make this clear, you mentioned large numbers several times (like millions of years, tens of millions of years) in this debate. To describe how a species adapts overall it is not convincing to people who only live 90 odd years. Therefore macro evolution I can not believe making it a belief. I personality rebuke the theory. * Evolution is a robust theory which explains large tracts of data. Yes correct micro evolution does. You seem to not get that I think micro evolution is a scientific theory. But macro evolution is not. It has not been tested. Fossils do not proof macro evolution. "Fossils need not have had children to be fossils." I targeted this quote first, it was not what I was saying at all. Let me explain. You can not tell weather or not fossils have had any young at all. For all you know the fossil could have been the last of it's kind. Or the fossil could be the first of it's kind, fossils show no evidence towards macro evolution. Period! Ask your self: What evidence does a child have towards Santa Claws? Presents in the morning? Does Santa Claws exist? Now I will put that in a macro evolutionary phrase. Now ask your self this: What evidence do you have towards macro evolution? Fossils found? Does macro evolution exist? That the fossils (presents) Ask your self: As a child why is there a Christmas tree? To place presents underneath? (Think back to the tree of life) You now know as a 26 year old that Santa Claws does not exist. You also know that the presents are from family not Santa Claws. And hopefully you are aware that the Christmas tree is there as a decoration . Ask your self: As a child why is there a Christmas tree? To place presents underneath? (Think back to the tree of life) "where as other mammals have it and don't suffer from scurvy" Scurvy is caused by a large lack of vitium C. This was only desovered in the when explorers suffered from scurvy when travelling to places like the Arctic and played a large role in WW1. I believe that before the flood there was much more land rather than sea. Before the plane was built people used ships and boats to cross the sea. It would have taken much longer and tinned food was not meant to be stored for so long. Therefore because of the food, scurvy occurs when it is eaten. All diseases like scurvy have been caused by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which did not exist when God made the universe. As it says "And it was very good" is disease very good? Saying a 100 million years is like saying Santa Claws can get to every house and spend a millionth of a second if he was to visit every home in the world. That's a belief ladies and gentlemen. "We have witnessed within our lifetime infectious diseases becoming resistant to the antibiotics used to fight them." This may be true but it's like saying a giraffe with a longer neck can reach the remaining leaves were another giraffe can not reach and dies. This is no proof of macro evolution but only micro evolution. Can a cure for a disease help one have longer arms or a longer neck, stronger arms or stronger legs? And can one with longer arms or a longer neck, stronger arms or stronger legs cure a disease? Didn't think so. "Scorpions have evolved plenty as have sharks and crocodiles." Yes but they are still scorpions, I agree with that. But no macro evolution has occurred even after an apparent 400 million years. So would you not need to believe that the creatures alive today will evolve to a completely different species. Example: Scorpion to small mammal like a rabbit. "Of course the Mandrill is related to the Baboon. Oak trees are related to baboons." Yeah because God made them both. So what did the oak tree look like when haha sorry, when the baboon was closer related? We also share 50-60% DNA with bananas, were be once parshly a banana? Which would have been not a banana at the time. But still were we once partly plant? See how silly evolution is viewers. "The monkey species are different species. They occupy their niche. There's is a greater monkey or lesser monkey and there's no such thing as holding back all the other monkeys" Ok I did go slightly crazy there. (over the top) So the lesser monkey then. It is down to them to keep up. Yeah I get that then. Other wise they will go extinct. Just proofs that most of the fossils are lesser breeds then. Not middle forms, I believe though in the Great flood. Sorry to say there is not macro evolution. "The saber tooth cat looks to have gone extinct due to a meteorite impact in Canada about 13,000 years ago according to a new and fairly impressive new proposal of what happened to the megafauna." Just like the dinosaurs, I think someone is lying about the meteorites here. I know there's a big gap between 65 million years and 13,000 but the only disaster which has wiped out species was the flood. And that is the only disaster too where humans have been around and alive. No humans according to you were around 65 million years ago. And there is no record from the apparent humans about the meteorites 13,000 years ago. In till I see a meteorite in my life time I consider this again to be a belief. Not going to well for you is it? "Pika actually isn't part of the rabbit family. It has it's own grouping" Then it is what it is, neither a rabbit or a mouse or hamster. It just another mammal. "Pikas are more related to rabbits than hamsters." Yeah fine. I can not decide that. "Sharing a much more recent common ancestor." No. It just looks more like a rabbit. That simple. "Pikas like rabbits are cecotrophs." Yeah fine again. "Hamsters are however rodents characterized by their teeth rather than lagomorphs. The close relationship in behavior and appearance is due to their common ancestry and evolution." No. They are just common looking. A mug and a cup look the same but there is no common ancestor. (there is no between cup/mug drinking item) "Macroevolution is microevolution over longer periods of time." What like to scorpion? It is not like the scorpion has concerned all climates, but if it did would it change? Unlike dogs which have conserved all climates. Labradors and Huskies for example. There both dogs. "The fossil record is fantastic for showing exactly these transitional forms" Like saying " my record of presents are fantastic for showing exactly what presents I may have this year." There is an amazing link going on between macro evolution and a 4 year old Christmas. If one is wrong both are. You know. "There is one tree of life" Yeah only one Christmas tree too, for your presses. "At the branching you have two very closely related species like the Red Pika and Gansu Pika." Would not the word closely not be close enough? I want you to tell me what happens at the very start of when the branches splits. Just as soon as the branches divide. "You say there's no limit to microevolution, except you impose one... It doesn't work over long periods of time." No it does work over long periods of time so it has no limits, you are getting the wrong analogy here. Example of a correct analogy: If one mows the lawn in two hours how long would it take if two men mow the lawn? One hour yes? Ok. Now a false analogy: If one plane crosses the English channel in two hours, two plane should be able to cross it in an hour. Right? No! Another example: If it is raining there must be clouds. There are clouds therefore it must be raining right? Wrong! Last example "If I am elected, I promise to reduce crime. I will reduce crime by making fewer things illegal." Like evolution. Micro evolution happens therefore so does Macro evolution. No this is not the case. Macro evolution is a false analogy. You may say "so you think." Yeah I do therefore macro evolution is a belief I think the Great flood happened about 4400 years ago. Thanks you, note on what I've said.