I'll be honest with everyone, I've enjoyed reading a lot of this because its not the normal terribly ignorant debate on "religion vs science" that I'm used to (most religious people won't even discuss the possibility of evolution or most even basic scientific knowledge that might refute religion, and there are even less people with any mid to high end biology or chemistry knowledge). However there are a few things that I've seen that I can't quote all at once because they are on separate pages, so I have to address them a bit more generally than point by point, and some of the topics were dropped or forgotten, so I may be bringing up older closed points.
First, most biologists (at least the dozens I've learned under, worked with, and read) do not really believe in the separation of "Micro" and "Macro" evolution as two different things. Using those terms to mean two different things is something people who don't study the subject use quite often, however.
I had a research project that I began my sophomore year of college that I intend to continue into grad school, and what I did was stress microscopic organisms with anything from heat to cold, to derivatives of agent orange and more. Early on, the organisms died in almost every instance you would expect, which is what our evidence showed from other studies. However, after a few years using the offspring of many of these that did survive, they started to resist certain things quite a bit (I'm talking in the hundreds of generations). It got to where the test groups could more survive heat (whereas before they would more die). In essence, we sped up evolution on them in the form of resistance to heat.
Some would argue that is microevolution for two reasons. First, that is, biologically speaking, lightning fast for any form of evolution to occur (which is why I'm debating doing a thesis on it in grad school), second, it is micro because the organisms in question can still mate with non heat resistant organisms and produce viable offspring.
The fact is, it is neither micro or macro evolution. It is simply evolution, a change in the genetic code. Anyone who says one can occur (but not the other) needs imply be asked, "What logical, biological, or chemical roadblock can stop Micro from becoming macro? Or Macro into being broken into more measurable micro?"
Now to much less serious/more funny/logic thinking things over science:
I'm no marine biologist, but if God flooded the world, He HAD to do something for the fish and water animals, as either the world could've been all salt water or all fresh water (depending on how he wanted the rain to be composition wise), but in no way could both types of fish/animals survive, and if he did something to protect both, the bible would say so.
Lastly, the earth is about 4.5 BYO (the moon is about 4.15 BYO as far as I know) and the universe is roughly 14 BYO (the milky way closer to 13). With a few crazy exceptions in the scientific community, this is widely regarded as common sense to scientists. Disagreeing with that is like disagreeing with evolution (The 2+2 = 4 of biology) or chemical bonding (ditto, but for chemistry). There's no reason to do it because it won't do anything more than make most people laugh or completely disregard what you say.
That's not to offend anyone who doesn't believe in those things, simply to say that it's like playing poker but refusing straights and flushes count, so they shouldn't for anyone else either. You can still win occasionally with 2 pair or three of a kind, but you'll not last against guys who use the whole deck.
