I am sorry but you are too far off base with this one that I can't even begin to correct you.
What about all the humuniod fossils we have found that link man with other primates? Australiopithicines are no longer among us and we have found their fossils. Whales have a distinct lineage in the fossil record. Birds, reptiles, amphibians, and mammals all have species that are no longer with us have been unearthed. This is common knowledge and common sense. Pick up a journal or a book once in a while and read up on current scientific discovery - it helps!!
"MICROevolution does not lead to MACROevolution.
There is no evidence for this! None! "
You are basing this statement on the assumption that the earth is only 6,000 years old. It is not a stretch to say that small changes over time lead to large changes in the long run. I will agree with you that we can not directly witness macroevolution in nature. It takes too much time. We can see microevolution and we KNOW the earth is relatively old. It doesn't take a brain trust to figure out that if you couple them together you get big changes in organisms. The transitional fossils are present - I thought you were saying that there weren't enough of them to support evolution. I didn't realize that you were saying there are NO fossils present in the record. That makes me laugh. I have actually been on a fossil expedition and witnessed the findings of extinct species. That is what a transitional fossil is - an extinct species of organism that has similarities of organisms living today. No longer living otherwise they would still be around, right. You make a statement that would be laughed at even by intelligent design standards. No - none - zero transitional fossils!! You are wrong - so wrong that it makes everything else you say non-credible. Sorry but you should check your facts.
"You don't think that 140 years is enough to find ONE fossil that supports evolution? Just ONE fossil in 140 years?"
Yes it is plenty of time to find one fossil, even hundreds of fossils. It is not enough time to fill in even a hundredth or a thousandth of the fossil record, though. Astronomy has been around since the 1500's as a "science". Do we know all of the planets in the universe? Do we even know about the entire solar system? The Oort cloud, Kupier belt, Pluto, moons, rings, and so forth are still not understood very well. You seem to believe that science be full of absolutes and rock solid laws. That is not science, that is religion. You still don't know the difference.
"Not to offend you again, but where did you recieve your degree?"
Why does that matter? I have a degree in Biology. I minored in a general degree in earth sciences. Where did I get it? Somewhere in the midwest. Not a fancy school, I assure you - but somewhere that is credible.
Admit you might be wrong and would change with new evidence coming to light - or you are not engaging in science.