When I had students like you I simply requested that they be willing to learn what scientists think.
As for speciation not being evolution, well, by definition it is. From the timeline you give, extremely rapid evolution is required for the pairs at the genus or family level to have diversified to the degree we have today.
If I may respectfully suggest, consider your acceptance of Genesis literally as an acceptance of the miraculous which is God's territory, and don't worry about where science differs. Someday, somehow, they'll come together. Sort of (re science) “gee this is nifty, wonder how it will all play out.”
What many on both sides of the debate misunderstand is that the definition of "evolution" must be decided upon for meaningful debate to continue, which is why I specifically mentioned that "I disagree that speciation is the same as evolution, though, especially interns (sic) of the rise of entirely new Genus', more or less."
Evolution simply means change. The development of "new species" is simply variation on a theme. A bear is still a bear, a fruit fly is still a fruit fly, and e.coli is still e.coli. What I, and creationists in general, have trouble with is the single cell to man grand evolutionary scheme. This is based on conjecture, assumption, and the bones of a few dead animals that we "believe" were ancestors of present living creatures. One look at the current skull shapes of just bears (http://www.skullsunlimited.com/ursidae.htm) and if any one of these were extinct, and alleged to be some 2.4 million years old, it would be held up as the "ancestor" of the modern bear. I don't buy it.
My favorite is the "Coelacanth", which was once held up as the "ancestor" of the amphibian, but after we caught some alive, has been relegated to an evolutionary dead end. I am convinced that is we found the so called "transitional" fossils actually living today, the same would occur.
I have no problem at all with science per se when it is falsifiable, but most of the mud to man evolutionary scheme is not falsifiable, but is rather based on faith, much like my Christianity.
Jesus lived on earth some 2000 years ago. To that practically everyone agrees. The New Testament then records that he claimed to be God, healed the sick, raised the dead, walked on water, and had nature under his command. He said he came to be a sacrifice for my (our) sins, and suffered death on a cross. In order to prove his claims, he resurrected his own body on the 3rd day, and showed himself to many to prove it. This is all attested to in the pages of the NT, by the martyrdom of 11 of the 12 apostles who could easily have falsified it (why die for a known lie?), and by the changed lives of millions, mine included. Can this be absolutely falsified, no. We have only eyewitness testimony, and each person has to evaluate it's veracity. Then, faith is required. Just like evolution. Depends on who you trust.
The NT has not changed since it was written; "science", by it's very nature, is constantly changing to accommodate new findings. What was voraciously defended as scientific fact yesterday is easily dismissed for new scientific fact to be maintained today. Cest la vie.
Have you carefully considered the claims of Jesus Messiah?