Ready When Made

Well creation per se does not predict a deteriorating world.The paleontological record indicates that the number of species has varied upwards and downwards, sometimes catastrophically crashing (mass extinctions). Some argue that we are due for another such event.Even without the paleontological record it is to be expected form evolution that extinctions will happen and many modern extinctions have quite clear causes - not a deteriorating world, but human action.To sum it up the "deteriorating world" explanation of extinction is quite clearly false.
"
That's the second piece of "evidence for creation you've produced where the real evidence contradicts your claims. So my question is, if there is real evidence for creationism why are creationists relying on arguments which are so obviously wrong ?

As I explained the "deteriorating world" idea is contradicted by the evidence. It's not just "because I say so" at all.And just what is it that our hominid ancestors *needed* millions of years ago that they didn't have ? You say that it hasn't been disproven but it's not even a plausible claim - and it is based on just your say so. It certainly isn't a "simple fact".

So your argument is that evolution requieres continuous strong selective pressure. There's a simple answer to that - it's a strawman. Species either change very slowly over time (with no great selective pressure) or remain more or less the same (stabilising selection)for most of their existence. The latter is probably more common.

I can only conclude that you did not understand my previous post.I have already explained that your argument misrepresents evolutionary theory.

IF they are subjected to strong selective pressures for millions of years, either they keep up or they die out. I don't know of any cases where we can say that that has happened, and certainly not because the world was deteriorating (arms races are an example where pressure may continue for quite a while but it is because of mutual "improvements" - not because things are getting worse).

No, he doesn't have a good point. And nor do you. Essentially your argument relies on assuming rapid climatic changes frequently reversing beyond the point where they can be tracked by evolutionary processes. Well if you could provide evidence that this is that actual state of affairs then you would have an argument.
Of course, it obviously isn't the case so your point rests on an assumption that is clearly false.

How long macroevoution takes depends on what time you are measuring and what you consider macroevolution.However it is quite clear that the changes you mention aren't sufficient - Ice Ages may (and only may!) be sufficiently extreme but are not frequent enough, while the other changes you list are not extreme enough.