First off I would like to thank the author of this piece for not trying to use the Bible as evidence. Step in the right direction there mate, well done. I will now address each point separately.
The Big Bang. Well, you made the statement that the Big Bang was a supernatural event, but this shows your lack of understanding of the event. It completely complies with the laws of science and nature. It follows the laws of pressure, heat and physics. The heat and the pressure within the singularity was so immense that it created a massive explosion. You can simulate this by putting a pressurized aerosol can in a fire. As the heat builds, the pressure becomes so much that it will explode.
*Disclaimer. If you do try this, make sure you are nowhere near people and that you yourself is at a safe distance. I take no responsibility if you try this experiment with unsafe methods. Please google which precautions needs to be taken to ensure your and other people's safety.
All things look the similar so therefore they must have common ancestry. In this point you made the statement that whatever creator is an artist and as our artists there are commonalities to be found. This, I will give you, is a decent argument. But lets take this analogy a bit further. What about a silk worm and a human? There is no similarities there. Nor in trees and birds. In fact, there are a lot of discrepancies. Therefore your artist theory doesnt really hold water, because there are far too many discrepancies. The statement is just made that the similarities of certain animals may indicate a common ancestry. This is proven in other parts of science, but I will get to that later. One thing that shows our common ancestry with apes is when you start developing in the womb, you have a tail, which in most cases is gone by the time you are born. If you dont believe me, google it. Furthermore you used the difference in legs as an example. Evolution doesnt allow something that doesnt work to persist. So there will be a difference in legs and other things, because lets face it, if it didnt work it wouldn't have survived to pass on it's genes. Imagine an elephant on the legs of an impala, it just wouldnt work, and evolution is not in the business of creating stuff that doesnt work.
Evolution etc etc etc. You used eukaryote organism as the first life on Earth. Can you please reference for me where you came up with this as the first life on Earth? Because the eukaryote is a cell that comes in a large variety in all kinds of life on Earth, including plants and animals. The first life on Earth as far as I have learnt were cells resembling Prokaryote. These were single celled organisms that used carbon dioxide as a carbon source and oxidized non organic (which was all that there was) material for energy.
Furthermore, you show a very large misunderstanding of evolution. You think it happens overnight and that one species literally gives birth to another. The changes in species is over many generations. The father and mother of the animal is the same species as its offspring, but small changes can happen, such as slightly longer legs, which makes it run faster and survive better. Then that animals has children and their legs have the same length and so if this trait gets passed on for long enough you can get a separate species, but it took many generations to happen. Also, you asked what are the chances that they became sexually ready at the same time? Well, 100%. You see, if they dont get ready at the same time, then the species would die out. The thing about evolution is this, if you cant multiply, your species dies out within that generation and thats pretty much it. So the chances for all the current species on Earth to have gotten "ready" at the same time is a 100% because it did happen, just put on animal planet and the fact that they are there is proof of that.
Furthermore, Evolution has been proven threefold. The fossil record is one of the ways. Yes, I will admit the fossil record is incomplete, but then again this is just normal seeing as the even of fossilization is INCREDIBLY rare. So there are gaps, yes, but nothing to exclude it from the evidence library for fossilization. Then there is DNA evidence. DNA evidence is pretty much one of the most important factors in any investigation these days. Murderers get put behind bars or let off the hook depending on DNA evidence. That is how conclusive it is. With the mapping of the human genome, a lot has been learnt about DNA. You see, the part that makes up YOU, as an individual, is only a small part of your whole dna structure, about 1-3%. The other 97% is mostly just your ancestors, a sort of logbook if you will of every ancestor you have ever had. With the mapping of other animal's DNA they could compare it with ours, also other animal's with other animal's. This showed a lot of common ancestors shared by the species. In other words, if you look back far enough in their DNA, you could see where their evolutionary paths diverged. We share a large part of our DNA ancestry with apes, even as much as 97%. So this means, our great ancestors were the same as the chimpanzees in the zoo...its right there in the DNA. We dont even need to look at the physiology, just have to look at the DNA. The last part is through scientific experimentation, recreating evolution. This has been done with many varieties of plants and insects. You can google it yourself, because there are too many to mention. The one I like the most though is the Silver Fox experiment. You can read up about it because its well documented and you can even buy the results of this experiment, the Domesticated Fox. It basically showed how one species of fox through artificial selection (a simulation of natural selection) changed over generations to another species of fox, all within the same gene pool. Yes, I know, it didnt change a lot over the span of time, but thats how it works, gradual changes over large periods of time. This experiment is just one that demonstrates this.
The evolution of lungs is actually quite logical. There is more oxygen in the air above the water than in the water itself. During the time when the first animals got onto land, the oxygen levels were a lot higher than what they are now. You have this idea of fish in the water, but thats not correct. The very first life in the oceans that were multicellular can be found even today, sea sponges. But what you are getting at are mobile animals, with legs etc. These were mostly insect like (Arthropod, google it), this includes the ones in the water. Furthermore, the first life on land were plants, way before the first animal came out of the water. Now how did lungs evolve? I dont know, I am not an evolutionary biologist and neither are you, so maybe you should email one and ask them. But the reason for evolving them and going onto land is actually quite rational.
Morals standards etc. You used the age old case of where morals come from. As a species we have evolved certain behaviors that go with the continued survival of the species. As an individual, the human being is weak, we are slow and we give birth to underdeveloped young. Whereas several other species give birth to fully formed young, we do not. Lets take a giraffe. The giraffe's young can walk and run within a few hours of birth. Our children cant even hold on to us with their underdeveloped muscles at birth. It can take up to a year before our young can walk and even longer till they can run. They would be easy picking for any predators. So why did we survive? We took care of them. This went even further, we took care of each other, because lets face it, if we didnt we would always be lunch. We needed to work as a team to get food, protect us from predators and overcome all our physical weaknesses. This isnt uncommon survival strategy within the wild. The wolf pack have a packmate looking after the young while the rest go out to hunt, bringing back part of the kill for the baby sitter. We have just evolved that behavior further than most. Now lets move on to natural selection. This behavior doesnt interfere with it at all. Natural selection happens even in human society. Its not about survival so much as propagation. If you have a good job, look after yourself etc, you have a good chance of attracting a mate and your genes will be passed on to the next generation.
Perversions you mentioned with your arguments against gay oeioke. Well, even if you can take away the physical pain and give the child pleasure during sex with an adult, it would still be bad. If a child who doesnt even know how to read learns to enjoy sex at such a young age, it would destroy a lot of their developmental processes. Furthermore, its damaging psychologically to both parties involved. So no, it would still be wrong. The necrophilia is another case where the individual is not healthy and it causes a lot of other damage psychologically to himself and the family of the person whose remains are being laid with. Furthermore the same can be said with bestiality. Animals have certain times when they come into heat and this a natural part of their reproduction. To interfere with this unnatural and damaging to the animal and lets not even talk about the psychological damage to the person doing it. Homosexuality is a natural thing (yes, it does happen in nature) and in no way abnormal. Some studies have even shown that its programmed in, genetic level. Some even claim that there is a specific gene that causes it and it has been identified.
I hope I have covered all your points and if I missed something, please let me know.