I hate to
comment-node, but I'm afraid someone is going to take this guy's blather for truth...
1. There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.
Ever been to a museum of any sort of ancient history? They have bone remains of our predecessors, as well as a number of other animals (Sabertooth tigers / Modern tigers) who have changed over time. Of course, nothing would be found in the modern world because the old ones are extinct. Duh. The closes can be found in Darwin's recording of the species by the Galapagos Islands.
You go on to say that "...none of the supposed links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, blah blah." Plant to animal: Sponges. They have survived as such, but continued to evolve into more complex creatures. Most of these transgressions have taken place in the ancient past on a multicellular level (Study the different Kingdoms, you'll hopefully understand.) Your problem seems to be that you refuse to acknowledge any entities but the ones currently on this world.
2. Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".
Again, you don't seem to know what you are talking about.
"This could not produce evolution, however, since mutations do not create new genetic potential, they just alter what is already there. Furthermore, mutations are small, random, and harmful alterations to the genetic code. This also makes evolution from mutations impossible. For example, a working wristwatch does not improve but is harmed when its inside parts are randomly altered."
Mutations do create a LOT of "genetic potential," exactly BY altering what is already there. They are not neccessarily harmful, for example a seal that has a defect for a white coat might survive better in snowy regions and have more children with that gene.
BTW: Wristwatches do not reproduce, therefore no evolution can take place. Also, if you had millions and millions of wristwatches and each was altered a slight bit, you might end up with a more efficient one. That one would have to reproduce, proving your allegory pointless as evolution can not apply to an object.
"Natural selection also contradicts the second law of thermodynamics which states that, left to themselves, all things tend to deteriorate rather than develop, while evolution wants to go in the opposite direction. "Survival of the fittest" demonstrates only how an organism has survived, not how it has evolved."
The second law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems. RTFM.
By the way, it's reproduction of the fittest.
3. Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.
"Life coming from matter would violate the law of biogenesis and the cell principle which state that life must come only from life."
Life coming from matter? I am assuming you're trying to say "Life coming from non-life." At this point we enter philosphy, but I think that the chances in an infinite universe for life to come to being are larger than god creating man and beast out of clay.
"Secondly, we find that the first matter could not simply have come into existence from nothing."
No one ever said that matter came into existance from nothing. You're pulling this discussion from evolution to the big bang theory, if you knew your stuff you would be aware that these things are completely un-related. I happen to have done some reading on metaphysics, mainly just Steven Hawking's stuff, but - Where did God come from? - Right, that's rational.
From there on out he gets really wild, making opinionated claims and merely commenting on the finds without proper references. Highlights include:
(On evolution:> "It demands total annihilation of anything weaker than necessary and the ruling of anyone more powerful than others. People exhibit mercy, pity, and morality, all of which inhibit natural selection."
Man does not propel the machine of natural selection, nature itself does - In Africa, people with darker skin happened to get less sunstrokes, therefore they survived and had offspring. In the north, blond hair absorbed all natural sunlight, keeping the skull warm. People occasionally exhibit mercy, pity and morality because they feel a sense of kinship to their species / race / countrymen.
"much better explained by the fact..."
The last three points are basically substitutions of accepted scientific beliefs for religious "facts"... again without proper support.
"If we all come from the same ancestor, we would all be murderers and cannibals by the simple act of killing a cow."
If your definition of cannibalism includes the murder of a species whose closes ancestor is several million years away and looked like neither you nor the cow, yes.
There are few things in this world that piss me off. One is tailgating, the other is disguising an ill-supported opinion in "scientific" language to sell it to the gullible masses.