I have just read splinterjah's response and they obviously dont know anything about the scientific theories that they are dismissing and are speaking from complete ignorance. I've put comments from the original answer below in quotes.
They start by saying "Since the THeory of Evolution has been proposed by Darwin, there have been absolutly No "missing links" found whatsoever... and that is a fact-not my oppinion."
In fact, a number of transitionary forms have been found, the most well known and best preserved being Archaeopteryx. Archaeopteryx is considered a transitionary form between reptile and bird, as it has many obvious features that modern lack e.g. bones in much of the tail. It possesses a toothed mouth like reptiles unlike the toothless beak which all birds possess. It also has claws, again like a reptile, but it also has feathers which are one of the main criteria for taxonomic classification as a bird.
Next, "Unless you have missing links- you have no evolution"
Again, splinterjah isnt properly informed, transitionary forms are not the only evidence for evolution. In reality, the fossil record shows a huge variety of extinct organisms, especially marine organisms such as ammonites, due to a higher chance of fossils forming in the oceans. The fossil record is further evidence for evolution, as it shows animals which are unable to adapt to changing environmentals become extinct. But I wonder how creationists would explain these extinct animals if not by evolution? There is also DNA evidence which can trace the progress of certain genes through different classes of animal as part of evolution. On top of this, evolution can be observed in primitive organisms alive today: evolution of bacteria for antibiotic resistance as a result of intense pressure. In some cases, entire species of bacteria have become resistant to some antibiotics in just 20 years.
"Of course you can make up fake fossils and sculptures, and computer images of animals that never existed just to try and proove your belief... this is what several Evolutionist have done... and many gulible people, choose to believe in it. All of those humaniod ape-men- are frauds, bits and peices from different species."
None of these comments are specific or backed up by any sources, just a vague rant at evolution and the comments totally disregard all the fossil record. What is splinterjah suggesesting, that evolutionists have gone round the world planting fake fossils? What about dinosaur fossils and the fossils of ancient reptiles, many of these were found before Darwin proposed his theory of evolution?
"Oh and the last " so called ape man" before , "modern man" has absolutly no distiction between modern man at all...
There cannot just be one, "missing link", but there has to be millions linking between animals to give Evolution some ground on factual evidence... too bad there is no such thing as a missing link."
I dont know exactly what "the last so called ape man" refers to specifically as it isnt properly described. But responding to this point, maybe to someone ignorant, fossils of early hominids appear to look exactly the same as modern man but there are a number of important differences such the change of the hip bone to easier allow bipedal momevement of modern Homo Sapiens. Also other modern primates e.g. chimpanzees share 99.9% of our DNA which suggests a common ancestor. And what about the next point, that millions of "missing links" need to be found. The process of fossilization of terrestial animals is an extremely rare process, the body of the animal has to be undistrurbed by predators and scavengers, layers of sediment need to accumulate and massive pressures need to build up around the dead organism. This is why few fossils are found generally compared to the countless number of animals that have ever lived on land. And transitionary forms only exist for a comparatively short period of time as they are between two animals during the time when a particular species is evolving. So the low chance of finding millions of these "missing link" fossils is consistent with other scientific theories.
"Scientific law states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed in form... by natural means...
Wow, that fact sort of contradicts evolution's origin of the universe, does it not...evolution states that everything, laws, light, partricles formed from nothing..."
This is referring to the First Law of Thermodynamics or the Law of Conservation of Energy. I don't know where the "by natural means" comes from. Does natural means include petrol engines, lightbulbs and batteries? But the main problem here is that splinterjah doesnt even understand what evolution is, even through he has spent most of this article criticising it. A general definition of evolution is the process by which groups of organisms change into new organisms better adapted to their particular environment due to the process of natural selection and random genetic mutation. splinterjah is confusing evolution and the big bang theory of the origin of the universe. And the big bang theory doesnt state that everything formed from nothing, it actually states that the the universe rapidly expanded out from a single small point called a singularity, where all the laws of physics and matter were together. So in fact the first law of thermodynamics doesnt contradict evolution nor does it contradict big bang theory of the origin of the universe.
"Problem: particles of the atom-[ neutron, and proton]- have no attraction... so if by some miricle that those particles, from nothing, formed a stable nucleus before drifting off into infinity- and at the same time formed a stable electron orbit, traveling at insane speeds...
guess what that is just one atom.... most everything is made up of countless atoms..."
These comments are hardly written in coherent english, but I've tried to understand what splinterjah is getting at. Again this criticism has nothing to do with evolution, but in response to this criticism of big bang theory of the origin of the universe, protons and neutrons do in fact have attraction. Some of the most fundamental laws of physics state that all particles which have mass have attraction between them. There is a strong attraction between protons and electrons due to the positive charge on the proton and the negative charge on electrons. Also those "insane speeds" of the subatomic particles increases the chance of collisions and nuclei and then atoms forming, rather than decreasing the chance of them forming. This is from the basic laws of motion and kinetic theory. splinterjah also fails to understand that science is not talking about these atoms forming in infinite space. Big bang theory states that atoms were forming from subatomic particles millionths of a second after the initial expansion from the singularity. This happened in a very small space, with incredible amounts of energy present.
"chance of evolution senario: oddless."
What splinterjah doesnt seem to understand, the process of evolution has taken place on a massive time scale: billions of years from the evolution of single celled organisms to Homo sapiens. So however slow the process, there has been sufficient time to account for the diversity of life of the planet today.
"So in conclusion the Theory of Evolution is no more than a suedo-science, a religion, an alternative belief system for those that are too closed minded to believe in God, Not a science. You can't call yourself a scientist, and at the same time claim evolution as fact without factual evidence, only mere oppinion"
So after his rant, splinterjah has now come to his conclusion: Evolution is a pseudo-science. Even though much of the scientific theory surrounding evolution is complicated and needs a basic understanding at least to be able to criticise it rationally, splinterjah has concluded it is rubbish.
"But if you are closedminded from all things, including facts, that are appart from your ideology- then you are un-reasonable.
So your basically arguing the truth as you see it vs. the facts as they are."
Isn't this exactly what you have spent your answer doing, arguing the truth as you see it - God and religion - versus the facts as they are? And aren't you disregarding all facts that are apart from your ideology?
"If you want to believe that logic, laughter, art, self-awareness, language... formed by oddless chance... you go right ahead...if you want to believe that the universe formed from a speck from nothing, which contradicts scientific law, be my guest, that is your own blind faith..."
Evolution doesn't say all this formed by "oddless chance", the theory of evolution says that life adapted to changing environmental conditions to survive more effectively and that evolution is the way that nature has produced the all the variety of organisms today. Not just random chance. Neither does science say the universe formed from nothing. The original answer posted by splinterjah is typical of the attitude of many religious people who disagree with evolution, but don't have even a basic understanding of what the theory of evolution states. It is also typical of the simplistic answers that these same people give which are disagreeing with basic facts. I'm not saying that God isn't ultimately responsible for life on earth, maybe if there is a God, he designed the universe in such a way that the process of evolution would happen on earth to evolve humans. But the way that some relilgious people see this happening i.e. creationism, is at odds with basic logic and facts and is totally incompatible with science.