Geology has nothing to do with whether evolution is true or not.
2. and given the millions of fossils which have been uncovered, and chronologically arranged according to the age of the rock strata in which they are found (and when possible by carbon dating of the fossils as well);
Problem here is that fossil finds are to a certain extent fortuitous and while one can say that at a certain point in time a certain set of characteristics may have existed, one cannot tell either backwards or forwards the time that they arose or the time that they ceased to exist.
3. and given the visually striking pattern of apparent descent when these fossils are further arranged, not only by age, but also by their structural similarites;
It does not seem that striking to me. Let's throw the dinosaurs into the equation (which evolutionists like to forget) and you have some very strange creatures appearing. Also the Cambrian explosion throws down this whole elaborate scheme.
4. and given that the relationships thus suggested are also supported by DNA evidence;
Totally false. The DNA evidence does not support evolution. There are several reasons for this including that the concept of a molecular clock itself would disprove evolution.
5. and given that after generations of fossil-hunting, and now DNA study, there are no counter-examples of species which upset the above-described visually striking pattern of apparent descent;
There are, the Cambrian, the dinosaurs are examples.
6. and given that, in nature, feeble creatures will usually fail to survive and populate the next generation, while strong, capable creatures will most often be the ones who will pass on their genetic material to future generations;
7. and given that we observe mutations frequently occur;
8. and given that any mutation which is injurious will likely be bred out of a population, while a mutation that gives individuals an advantage will likely be passed on to future generations;
Problem with all the above is that it is completely theoretical, there is no proof or evidence possible for it. There is proof against it in the persistence of genetic diseases, and the continued survival of species which supposedly have been surpassed by the evolutionary process by more 'fit' creatures. In fact, the lowliest of the low in the evolutionary totem pole, single celled organisms, in spite of their minute size (which is many times smaller than a single human cell) constitute some 90% of the biotic mass on earth.
9. and given that isolated populations can, over time, become sufficiently differentiated from their parent stock that they can no longer interbreed;
The problems of inbreeding show that this isolated populations are breeding grounds for destructive mutations, not for the improvement of a species.
10. and given that all of the foregoing suggests a natural mechanism by which all species on earth could have gradually developed;
If evolution were true, we would see plenty of evidence for it all over. We do not. We do not see it in the bones (no gradual evolution), we do not see it in living species (there are close examples of almost every species found in the fossil record - with the significant exception of dinosaurs), we do not see it in DNA (all attempts at drawing phylogenetic trees from DNA disprove evolutionary assumptions), we do not see it in biology (where favorable mutations are not to be found in experiments).
It does not seem that striking to me. Let's throw the dinosaurs into the equation (which evolutionists like to forget) and you have some very strange creatures appearing. Also the Cambrian explosion throws down this whole elaborate scheme.
You are such a freakin' liar. Evolutionists do not "like to forget" about dinosaurs -- hell, we're the ones that say they are related to birds. Where in the hell do you get this stuff? Does it just pop into your head and you consider it divine revelation? As for the Cambrian explosion, if you'd actually read anything on the subject that was less than 20 years old you'd know evolutionists have no problem with it either. As more complete Vendian fossils come light it is apparent where the Cambrian critters came from. You prove time and again that you have no freakin' idea what you are talking about.
The rest of your post is full of such nonsense (molecular clock disproves evolution? How?) but the above is the most egregious example of ignorance masquerading as pomposity in your post, and as you have such a short attention span I figure I should start with the obvious stuff.
BTW, dear child, the point of PatrickHenry's post is that, taken individually any one of his points might point to a myriad of answers. Taken together (the "big picture") the evidence points to one conclusion. Creationists will be forever scrabbling about the periphery of real science until they can discern the difference.