Would that all the actual scientists who can confirm how truly wrong you are could engage you in an actual debate.
I doubt that I have the expertise (in bullshitting) to engage any "professional" entanglement with the rabid anti-Darwin crowd.
I'm thinking, though, about becoming a high school biology teacher. It's a deplorable state of science education today when it turns out graduates like you.
However, I am convinced that you would simply dismiss all scientists who do not believe in this myth of macroevolution that you hold so near and dear to your heart, regardless of how many degrees, doctorates, etc. those scientists may hold.
Since macroevolution is supported by a weight of evidence, what possible relevance would degrees and doctorates have?
If there was even one, just one solid piece of scientific evidence confirming that macroevolution is not a myth, which it most surely is, there would not be any controversy, no ongoing debate.
There is no debate. "Debate" is when both sides present evidence that supports their arguments.
What we have going on here is biologists presenting evidence, and ideologues like you presenting pseudo-intellectual claptrap. There's no debate among scientific circles that evolution occured and that the modern theory of evolution - including what you term "macroevolution" - represents the most accurate model of the history of life on Earth.
No matter how hard neo-evo's try, they simply are unable to convince anyone who is willing to excercise true common sense, logic, and reason, that macroevolution has ever occurred, is occurring now, or will occur in the future.
Really? I've got a list of 400 people of relevant scientific background who are convinced - and that's just the people named "Steve."
This is one of the reasons we have thousands of condemnatory quotes from evolution scientists about macroevolution.
Funny that that doesn't seem to stop them from working in macroevolutionary fields, advancing macroevolutionary conjectures, testing macroevolutionary hypotheses, and publishing macroevolutionary papers.
Is it coherent to you that these men and women devote their lives to a fraud?
They apparently hold to their professional opinions, posting them in various writings, while condemning the very concept of Darwinian macroevolution outside of those same papers, journals, etc., a fact that is made quite evident by the thousands of quotes which, so far, no neo-evo has been able to prove were taken out of context to mean something other than what the scientists actually said, and meant.
I'm sorry, which quotes were those? So far you've presented one, and it didn't say what you said it said. Keep trying, though. I've got plenty of time on my hands; we'll do every one of your "thousands" of quotes one by one.