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.
Every species is a transitional link in its own right. Of course, we do not have records for ALL transitions that ever occurred. All fossil records are based on unlikely circumstances so only a very tiny part of all creatures that ever lived are to be found as fossils. You cannot conclude from that that there is no evidence for evolution. A wide spectrum of findings support the theory of evolution.

2. Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".
In the contrary, it is very capable of advancing organisms. That's what selection is all about. However, the concept of higher-order organisms is very vague. Organisms get adapted to their surroundings, evolution knows no direction.

[/QUOTE]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.

No. The first lifeforms where very primitive chemical structures, it's unintelligible why it should be impossible fro them to have resulted from non-living structures. In fact, we know structures today that stand between life and non-life. Humans are only animals adapted to a certain biological niche. There's nothing in humans that isn't also in gradation present in some other animals. The claim that matter resulted from nothing is not part of evolution theory.
4. The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of 'finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

Any evidence to back up this claim? What we know is that these bones are older than creationists say is possible and they are bones of hominids. Inconsistency in the geneology of humans - which is only a tiny part of evolution BTW - are far from surprising, given the scarceness of these findings.
5. Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/monkeys and not part human at all.[QUOTE]

There are all primates, just like humans, only more primitive. Like our closest kin, the chimpansees. When precisely is something "part human"?

It seems to me that these objections go mostly along the line of "it can't be, it isn't so and it mustn't be". No real arguments. Saying that it's all impossible and all evolutionists are dirty liars is hardly scientifical.