Just a heads up; Kent Hovind is a professional liar who bought his degree from an unaccredited school and is currently is prison for evading millions of tax dollars.
Differentiating "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is a just case of shifting goalposts. Hovind's challenge is set up exactly this way so that nobody can sufficiently pass it, and even though speciation
has been observed countless times, the man flat-out ignores whatever evidence is presented. Let's never mind the fact that the first four requirements of his challenge have nothing to do with the ToE.
Creationists who accept evolution of the "micro" sort but not the "macro" are either failing to realise that they are essentially the same thing (one is simply a succession of the other), or they're covering their ears and pretending as though DNA has some sense that detects changes up until some arbitrary point where it says "Stop! No more change!" and halts any further mutations. I'd like to see a peer-reviewed study on that one, but I'm not holding my breath because it's clearly rubbish.
Accepting microevolution but not macroevolution is like saying "I can accept that 1+1=2, but this 10+10=20 stuff is just wack."
People are dumb when they say its fact. 'Cos, its a Scientific THEORY.
People are dumber when they use the word "theory" itself to discount one. Like "swear" (just an example off the top of my head), the word has different meanings depending on the context. Casually, a theory could be an idle guess that requires not any evidence. But a
scientific theory is a set of statements resulting from a hypothesis that has been tested through evidence, modified if necessary, reviewed and scrutinised by a scientific community, and under constant revision as more information arises. In other words, Evolution exists as a THEORY because it's supported by FACTS.
You never hear anybody outright denying the Theory of Gravity, or the Theory or Relativity, do you?
[edit]
By the way, I think the title of this thread is a bit of a misnomer. Just offering "Evolution is 100% true?" doesn't do any justice to the scientific method. As evident by the fields of science such as cell biology and paleontology where evolution is the
observation, it is 100% true, but the Theory of Evolution itself, the statements concerning the ancestors of species, does not aim to be 100% true, or true to any percentage. It's simply an arrangement of facts that remains open to revision.
Okay: 20-year-old who should be acting like a 30-year-old but acts like a 13-year-old.
