Welcome to the boards.
You raise a lot of questions which have been raised elsewhere on the boards several times (and will be raised again several more).
You may be able to find the answers to all your questions by simply looking a little deeper. However, I for one know how daunting that task is. The boards are pretty expansive and it's often hard to find what you're looking for.
I'll try to point you in the right directions.
I am arguing for creation, not for any religion in particular. I just want to put to test the creation by God, or the evolving of everything we see today. Also, I am not taking the position that the world was created in 7 actual days.
We call this possition - Old Earth Creationist
1. Where is the "actual" fossil evidence of creatures in-between species?
Here's the most recent thread about Macro/Micro
EvC Forum: When micro = macro ...
how do you justify evolution when the Law of Entropy and the Law of the conservation of matter have been scientifically proven?
These laws deal with closed systems. The earth is not a closed system. Sunlight beams down on earth 24/7/365. That energy into the system. There can be no entropy in a system which experiences constant input of energy. Likewise, conservation of matter.
3. How did the first components that "created the first cells" get there?
This topic is abiogenisis - life from not life. It's an interesting topic, but it's not really important to Theory of Evolution. Evolution takes over once life exists. How life got there, not important to the Theory.
4. The evolution of the eye.
This is the Irreducably Complex argument. "How can something have evolved if the pieces need to work together?"
The problem is that this argument doesn't fit the eye. Flatworms have eyes which are simply light sensitive cells, no lens, no pupil, no orb, etc. Many many creatures have eyes less suitable than our own, many many have eyes better than our own. The eye as an organ varies greatly. Not all the components are needed for an eye to work. The eye is not irreducably complex.
Is it not feasable to conclude that the earth and its
inhabitants have a creator too?
Your computer has a creator, but that doesn't mean that the rock in your garden has one. You may believe that the rock was created by God, but it can not be deduced from looking at the creations of man.
One such emotion, that I do not see has a "natural selection" value is love.
There is one goal of Evolution which is more important than any other - Produce Offspring. Everything else is secondary.
"Love" as a human emotion is very much a part of natural selection.
Can you look into their eyes and tell me that they were just some mistake? That the people that you hold dear to you are just random assortments of chance and stuff and it is just from apes to man that they are who they are?
There's no reason to see evolution as a mistake. It's not logically inconsistant to believe in God and ToE or even that God set up the rules that govern ToE. You could further draw from that that God set up the rules that govern ToE with the supreme knowledge that it would all eventually lead to you, your wife, your child, etc.
God's existance isn't really a "scientific" question. Science can't answer it, therefore science doesn't try.
What science can do is look at the data and describe the rules. And, what the data describes is Evolution through natural selection.
Hope that helps you get the wheels turning, and welcome aboard.
(by use "Peek Mode" to see how people do quote boxes)
™ Version 4.2