How are we supposed to consider evidence that isn't there? So far I've only read the section on Darwin's Finches, but at least on that your link doesn't provide even the slightest shred of actual evidence, nor any reference thereto.
Darwin's Finches are still to this day considered to include at least 14 good species (13 in the Galapagos and 1 from Cocos Island), and even represent several genera, the next higher level of classification above species: the ground finches (Geospiza), the tree finches (Camarhynchus), the warbler finch (Certhidea) and the Cocos finch (Pinaroloxias). There's been no change on that front from taxonomists.
The only "evidence" provided in the link is a bald assertion from Walter Lammerts (an antievolutionist with no expertise in ornithology) that gee, these are really just subspecies of one "finch" species. No ornithologist or taxonomist accepts that position, and Lammerts gives no reason they should.
I add only that the website Theo mentioned once again demonstrates the difference between science and creationism.
Due to its religious background, creationism is based on authority as opposed to data. "X himself said so, therefore you're wrong" is a common response employed by many creationists.
They either forget or do not realize that dogma has no place in science. If an idea is not supported by data, it's discarded. Science changes. Creationism tries to change by redefining itself (e.g. intelligent design), but it in end, it's the same old arguments that don't hold up in the courtroom1, much less a peer-reviewed journal.