There is of course the difference between Micro and Macro Evolution.

Micro Evolution has been proved beyond doubt, and even a Creationist (of which I am one), has to agree with that.

The idea that everything evolved out of a primordial soup is another thing entirely, and still has massive flaws and elements up for debate.

My username has nothing to do with my religious beliefs

Ditto

Evolution might not wholly explain how we got here and may have a bit of work yet to do.... but by fcuk it makes more sense than some great being creating the earth in 7 days... no wait 6.. the lazy toad had a day off, then sometime later he sent his son to sort us out etc etc.

Grow up FFS..... do you still believe in Santa Claus?

Fossil records demonstrate an overall progressive relationship between species, and a series of developments across time periods between species who's existences do not overlap - As exampled in the extinct Equidae and Equidus Ferrus. Fossil records are too patchy to prove evolution (thus it remains a theory), however the do provide supporting evidence towards the evolutionary development within their scientific taxonomy.

Its also important to note, that when people say 'evolution doesn't demonstrate the appearance of new species' that is incorrect, the development of new species has been observed and recorded, what people actually mean when they say species is class order and family.

This provides support to the concepts and theory of evolutionary development, as you'd call it, micro-evolution.

Fossil records lend credence to scientific taxonomy which in turn provides an argument that supports evolution.

You cannot take fossils as either proof or disprove of evolutionary theory. They're evidence towards disproving a null hypothesis. The abstractive jumps in the records are, as you point out too great, to show anything other than a relationship, on which taxonomy is developed.

For more than that you'd need genetic records, which interestingly do show relationships between species that is consistent with the idea of shared ancestors.

For example, there is sufficient similarity genetically between humans and chimpanzes to show a relationship (a shared ancestor, and establish them as primates), which supports the taxonomical basis of Primates, which is supported by fossil records of primates, and hominids in particular (particually of the Homininae homo of which Homo Sapian is the only surviving species).

Evolution allows for 'outside influences' over the development of a species and lifeforms, it just states that these are environmental, because there is insufficient evidence to support a hypothesis of intelligent design (which itself must have of course occurred randomly, which in turn proves evolution - the intelligence is then no different from us breeding dogs).

Creationism immediately fails scientifically - it has to demonstrate either a creator, or disprove the null hypothesis that there is no need for a creator.

Science isn't really about truth - There are no definable truths, all statements are contextually defined and the truth tends to be something we infer from the assumptions.

Evolution is a theory, not a fact. Its supported by genetics, population genetics, natural and sexual selection and consistant within biology, and supported by evidence from outside of biology.

It does not prove or disprove the existence of God, anymore than it disproves the existence of Thor or Shinto Ancestor Spirits. It simply presents that there is not sufficient evidence to support a literal translation of genesis in which god creates man and all the beasts in 7 days (which incidently fossil records disprove entirely).

Its not single step evolution, which is an established fact - but that's a different matter.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

It doesn't, those are irrelevant to scientific models. Evolution simply is about random selection within environmental influences.

Evolution actually allows for God creating humans from a shared chimpanzee ancestor (or rather several species of humans from that ancestor), provided God occurred through scientifically plausible means.

As this cannot be demonstrated then the aspect of random determinism through environmental fitness which has been demonstrated time and again, fits better.

That's the beauty of science, it isn't about truth, its about what you can show to be probable and the most probable outcome.

There is room for a or many Gods (or goddesses), you just have to reasonably demonstrate a need for god, or the existence of god.

The problem is that people assume that science and religion are about what is true, rather than being about trying to construct models for understanding the experience of existence.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

You're the one that believes in "fairies" reborn and you say my response is childish?

I'm angry that billions of people waste their time believing this rubbish, and worse... killing each other in the name of religion because they cannot agree which is the true faith....... Mindless!