Alright, it's impossible to create something from nothing. So, clearly, the universe couldn't have come from nothing, only a god capable of designing and intricately running such a universe could've created it. Sounds dandy. But where did the god come from? If a universe on its own is already impossible to come into existence, how could a god who is capable of creating and designing a universe, something clearly considerably more complex than the universe itself, come to exist? Clearly, he couldn't just have always existed, and he couldn't have created himself. You'll get no further serious consideration from me until you can come up with a suitable answer to this huge contradiction you've laid for yourself.
Even more amazingly, it seems that god himself, a superbeing more complex than the universe is, is still highly organized and coherent. Guess he can void out entropy for himself. Let me make it exceptionally clear, you're the one arguing from faith here, simply declaring things by fiat for god that is possible but yet you hold impossible for anything else. How hypocritical of you to demand explanation for universe not voiding these laws of physics, yet not hold the god you claim to need to explain it to the very same problems and conditions that plagued it in the first place.
You have no evidence to prove that they couldn't deviate from those values. For all we know, these values could not possibly be any other value, and that they are no freer to vary than the answer to the question of 2 + 2. Once again, you're declaring things by fiat and faith, with no consideration to actual truth or evidence.
As for the bit at the end there, physics clearly does agree with evolution, else we would not be here to debate about it. Besides, you said nothing about physics that would at all preclude evolution.
Ok, I always found it perplexing when people say they believe in microevolution but not macroevolution. If you believe in one, you believe in the other. Just think about it this way. You accept the fact that an organism can change a tiny bit from one generation to the next, right? Well, now, imagine the cumulative affect of tiny bit of change every generation, or even every tenth generation if you want, over the course of millions if not billions of years, then compare the most recent organism to original starting organism. It will have become a drastically different organism, by the power of changing a small bit at a time over a very long period of time.
As for direct proof, there is a ton of proof. Here's some. They found an intermediate species for the evolution of flatfish.
http://www.newscientist.com/article...caught-evolving-thanks-to-its-roving-eye.html
General FAQs for evolution, dealing with the fact that evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, and having transitional fossils.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
Here is an article about a fossil found that bridges the gap between swimming fish and four-legged land creatures.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14952-missing-link-fossil-stuck-its-neck-out.html
Here, you can even read the wikipedia page on Evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
And to preclude a further resuscitation to the topic of intelligent design, here's another article.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13927-five-things-humans-no-longer-need.html
Clearly, you lack any real understanding of evolution if you somehow try to claim evolution is a "religion". Evolution is a process that simply explains how less complicated life forms can become more complicated.
As for how life actually started, you can start by reading some of the theories from wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_life
Life never "magically" appeared, and never "magically" changed from one species to another. To have said such an outrageous thing indicates a lack of any good scientific education on your behalf, or a complete refusal to see and acknowledge the evidence. That only makes your position all the more contemptible when you try to then use science (incorrectly and erroneously) to disprove other established scientific theory.
Also, once again, people seem to be confused or ignorant as to what the phrase "scientific theory" entails.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
Also a quote from here (which contains other interesting tidbits):
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/qanda.shtml