1) EIAF claimed geology proved faunal succession. I pointed out the Flood of Noah would've arranged fossils most in accordance with only the vertebrate evolution from water to land facet of the evolution story. What evidence is there then, for the evolution of invertebrates from water to land; particularly the insects?
While you indeed made the above claim, you never explained the gaps in appearance between reptiles and mammals that were fulfilling similar niches (among other contradicting facts).
Depending on which fossilized remains are considered true insects, the first known insects appear either in the Silurian (Aptergyota—resemble silverfish) or in the Devonian (fragmentary fossil evidence). They are plentiful in the Carboniferous period, however by this time they are fulfilling multiple niches on land.
A better example of invertebrates transitioning to land can be seen in the Arachnids, more specifically scorpions. Scorpions with book gills (like modern crabs) start to appear in the Silurian, but variations with book lungs (like spiders) in the upper Devonian/Lower Carboniferous eras
2) What evidence is there for the evolution of the major groups of plant life that exist today (versus faunal succession)?
Simply put, we don't find today's plants in the lowest layers. Plants themselves display faunal succession (see the extremely oversimplified list below). The first vascular plants show up in the Silurian period, trees show up in the Carboniferous, while Cactuses don't show up until the Cretaceous. It's difficult to argue that Cactuses start showing up in higher layers than trees because they were able to scramble to higher ground during the flood.
Quaternary -
Tertiary – First Redwood Trees
Cretaceous –First Cactuses and Palm Trees
Jurassic – Angiopsermophyta (first flowering plants and trees)
Triassic -
Permian -
Carboniferous – First Conifers
Devonian – Pteridophyta (ferns)
Silurian – First Vascular Plants (land)
Ordovician -
Cambrian -
Pre-Cambrian –First marine plants (algae)
3) Since evolution is an all-encompassing mindset that claims to answer the question of how we are here, and therefore implies an answer to the question of the meaning of life; how is evolution not a religious concept, bearing this feature of it in mind?
The need to explain "how" evolution is not a religion is about as necessary as the need to explain how history itself is not a religion. Your entire assumption that such an explanation is necessary rests on your own subjective interpretation;
"and therefore implies an answer to the question of the meaning of life"
Of course, it is indeed possible for one to build a religion off of evolutionary theory, but this is not a product of the theory itself but rather someone's choice to modify evolution into a religious framework.
