This "rebuttal" rebuts nothing. Just a collection of statements, in fancier wording, that no evidence is any good because God could've made everything in its present form with the appearance have having evolved.
For example, in Part 17. Functional Evidence Protein Redundancy: The claim is that, since God could make cytochrome c with countless arrangements of amino acids, he would not have used an identical or similar series of amino acids in the cytochrome c of separately created species.
Apparently, God chose to make similar species with similar series of amino acids. Basically, the author says that God chose to create all species with physical characteristics that just happen to match all the predictions made by evolution. Every page of this link is more of the same sort of 'reasoning', applied over and over. None of the author's 'rebuttals' have testable implications (at least none that are correct).
In the end, even if the author is correct that God intervened and created everything with such an "evolved" appearance, (macro)evolution still stands strong in its ability to make and fulfill empirical predictions, and creationism completely falls flat in its ability to predict anything.
Any rebuttals that actually contain a testable implication of creationism that actually falsifies evolution in any way?