While your position is well-written, it's not well thought out. There are a minor issues with each point of your position, ranging from false assumptions, lack of information, and misinterpretation. With these issue combined, I don't believe that your argument holds water.

Firstly, lets look at bacteria. Each individual cell is an organism, and yet these organisms work together, forming a tissue of sorts. The outermost layer is typically dead cells that serve to shield the living cells inside from harmful substances and species- much like the skin on a larger organism. One could look at a bacteria colony as a sort of transition stage between single celled organisms and multicellular life. This is actually a pretty accurate comparison, as the genes of the bacteria have adapted for them to grow in colonies in this manner.

Genetic drift and genetic changes in species occur regardless of whether there is selective pressure at play. Changes in conditions highlight these changes, so to speak, as each makes the organism more or less fit for the environment, more or less able to successfully reproduce. When two populations of a species are separated, and under different conditions, those conditions shape the direction that the 'successful' instances of genetic drift move toward. Forming another species does not happen immediately, or anywhere close to quickly. Take a look at dogs, for example; different breeds of dogs have been formed by selective breeding, and the various breeds of dogs are incredibly diverse. But, all of them are still the same species, still compatible genetically speaking. There hasn't been sufficient time or sufficient control in the entire history of dog breeding to cause speciation; this is why evolution is measured in millions/billions of years, rather than thousands. But yet, the effects can be seen, and the difference in breeds is due to difference in genetics; let the genes continue to drift, continue breeding selectively, and eventually the species will no longer be genetically compatible. That's not speculation, it's simple observation and math.

Furthermore, the experiment in question does not disprove spontaneous generation, at all. The experiment demonstrated only one thing: That the specific conditions used in said experiment were not observed to result in spontaneous generation. Perhaps the conditions were wrong, hence why generation didn't occur. Perhaps the conditions were right, but the chances of spontaneous generation occurring under even ideal conditions are low. Perhaps the conditions were right, the chances of spontaneous generation occurring under ideal conditions is high, and it was simply a case of bad luck. But the ONLY thing that the experiment proved was that, as I noted earlier, spontaneous generation is not guaranteed to occur under the conditions used; it says nothing regarding whether or not spontaneous generation can occur, and nothing about the likelihood of it occurring or not.

As such, your conclusion is false as it makes an untrue assumption. That said, I am not asserting that evolution is undeniably true, just that your statement here does nothing to actually discredit evolution.

But how can a single cell evolve into more cells if there is just one cell?

What force do you know that would stop it?

There are numerous ways this could happen, but the most likely and common seems to be something like this: billions of years ago, many single celled organisms were non-mobile. As they reproduced, the next generation lived right next to its parents and siblings. Early single-celled organisms weren't very complex yet (even compared to modern ones) and had fairly mutable, simplistic DNA. Mutations and adaptation to environmental changes were fairly easy to come by. It wasn't long before individuals started interacting with their neighbors. Eventually they started sharing metabolisms and and became so reliant on the communities that the DNA reflected that. Gradually, the DNA was creating more aspects to be used by outside cells, that it was essentially inevitable (and probably easier) to simply reproduce more than one cell per generation.

Micro evolution exists because we see that in natural selection that the fittest survive adapt to the environment and pass on their traits. They make a new species but it's still the same animal but they don't have the same thing as the other animal.

You said both "a new species" and "still the same animal". Which is it? If you admit it is a new species, then you admit to macro-evolution, because that is what macro is all about, delineating between groups and species is the lowest level of that.

Also evolution says that life came from non-life basically spontaneous generation.

No, you are talking about abiogenesis. Evolution requires life in the first place (to have something to evolve) and the theory of natural selection can't be applied until after the first life form is up an dunning. It wouldn't matter if abiogenesis occurred or if God created the first life, the principles of evolution would be unchanged are still sound.

Louis Pasteur didn’t believe in spontaneous generation and what he did in his experiment is he took a nutrient broth and put it in a curved neck flash and he waited over a year to see if anything would come out of it and nothing happened.

How similar do you think the environment was in his flask to the environment of earth's young oceans 4 billion years ago? If someone were to prove that you can't swim through rocks, does it prove you can't swim anywhere?

I suggest getting your religion from religious sources and science from scientific ones. Your post suggest you have been fed inaccuracies about this science.

All it says is that we started off of single celled organism and there was no great cause to start it off.....Also evolution says that life came from non-life basically spontaneous generation.

Evolution does not make the claim that life started spontaneously. How life started is not a part of evolutionary theory, you are tacking it onto evolution here.

When I think of Evolution I think of micro evolution and macro evolution.

This is always where the issue is. You are using scientific terms here but not understanding/using scientific definitions. Macro evolution is the many accumulations of micro evolution. A species starting from a point in time 'A' over a long period of time and while being influenced by changes in their stimuli such as; climate, geography and interaction with other species will look different after many generations at the point in time 'B'. So much in fact that the species at point 'A' may not be sexually compatible or recognizable to itself at point 'B'. Now extend this timeline to C,D, E and so on. Certainly 'M' will differ greatly from 'A'. Over enough time these changes can be amazingly great, or if the species stays roughly in the same 'zone' very little changes.

I am not sure you grasp the timetable these changes take place over.

Before you post another poorly thought out argument, check for a dispute here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

I rarely dispute so this is kind of a big thing for me, but this is just wrong.

"he took a nutrient broth and put it in a curved neck flash and he waited over a year to see if anything would come out of it and nothing happened"

His experiment is flawed. He only gave it the limited amount of time. Your saying that "it can't happen, because it didn't happen in this limited amount of time" is basically you're basically saying that "You can't cook noodles, because you can't cook them in 30 seconds" or some other example of putting a premature limit on something with either a longer one or one that we do not yet know of.

That flaw in his experiment aside, there's no way we can tell what events took place during the time of potential spontaneous life, so their is no way to know if his experiment was the same as the time spontaneous life probably occurred.

Now on to the flaw with the only alternative to evolution, God. If like can't spontaneously exist, who on earth can God? Note that it's already been established that his 'omnipotence' isn't actually able to do anything. He can't do the logically impossible, like making a 4 sided triangle, so he can not create himself before he is created.