Ok I am by no means viewing this from a religous standpoint and from a purely scientific standpoint. So lets see what happens.
Bullshit. Please continue, though.
The Finches on the Galopigos islands is a good example. [...] Today that is known as Microevolution, or natural selecton, and is a scientific law as it can be observed at a measureable rate. Now Macroevolution or just evolution as it is commonly known has less evidence.
You know not of what you speak. Macroevolution IS microevolution. It's the same bloody thing, just over a larger time scale. It always amazes me that people can accept microevolution (because hey, they're not clones of their parents), but absolutely refuse "macroevolution" because that means we have a common ancestor with chimpanzees. *facepalm*
Please, do go on... though I will skip a lot of the just utter nonsense, mind you.
As was expected, scientists did not want to beeive it so they changed the theory so many times it barely resembles Darwins original assumption. Now the most widely accepted theory is mutation though judging by what Ive been seeing from this post not so much.
Genetics verifies gradual changes over time. We can track evolution through our DNA. Aside from that, the various hypotheses posited over time get modified with the evidence discovered. However, the core idea (descent with modification over time) remains relatively THE SAME.
Now that thats out of the way lets look at other less long arguments. Most scientists believe it, most scientists believed the Earth was flat,
Name two. It has been known that the world is more or less round for THOUSANDS of years. People have known the world was round since the times of ancient Egypt.
You try to bring a new idea into a science classroom itscompletely stopped by legal battles against scientists.
...and right there. That's where you outed yourself as a creationist... and you weren't hiding it that well to begin with. Your weak understanding of science, history, and basic knowledge gave that away long ago. But the main reason I bring this point up is because the classroom IS NOT A LABORATORY. The high school classroom is not the place for scientific debates. High schoolers aren't scientists. They don't know the difference between black holes or ass holes. Notwithstanding that creationism ISN'T SCIENCE and therefore does not belong in a science classroom...
there is no significant fossil evidence and most "missing links" are nothing more than a few broken up peices of a skeleton.
Yes, please... keep demonstrating your ignorance.
Start here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY
Most notably the Nebraska man is one of my favorites.
Note that most scientists were skeptical that it even belonged to a hominid and Osborn himself (the paleontologist who wrote the paper hypothesizing that it might be a new species) declined to make the conclusion that it was a hominid.
Where exactly is the entertaining part? That some members of the public got over-excited and over-blew the discovery? That some scientists were proven wrong? It happens, you know. You're often wrong innumerable times before you're right. That's science. Claiming that being wrong in their attempts to understand things makes scientists laughable is ridiculous.