I don't even know yet how the Creationists feel about this, so this stuff could be all wrong.
Because these are pretty common creationist lines, I'll give some short science answers for them from a Christian standpoint (remember that most evolution supporters are Christian). We can have a longer discussion on any of them you don't understand or would like to discuss more.
I'm going from the list you posted from here:
http://creation.com/15-questions (not the videos).
1. This underestimates the progress in abiogenesis research. The fact is that we've got a pretty good idea of several possible routes to life. We don't know which of these actually happened, and there are steps that are not fully understood yet - but that's the same situation with cancer (we don't know exactly how it starts), and no one is suggesting that cancer is poofed into existence by God. It's perfectly reasonable for a Christian to think that God poofed the first cell into existence, and it evolved from there. However, that's a blatantly God-of-the-gaps approach.
2. DNA formed from RNA, which formed from more basic nucleotide molecules. This is in many ways like #1. Because DNA (and early cells) don't fossilize well, we don't have a perfect record - just like you don't have a perfect record of how I got to work this morning. DNA is not a symbolic code - it works due to the shape of the molecules, so saying it needs an intelligent source is like saying that because I can use a stick to dig for ants, the stick must have had an intelligent source - it simply doesn't follow.
3. The fact that DNA makes new information is both well understood and well demonstrated.
Here are some basic types of mutations and how they work:
- Duplication of a stretch of DNA. This is like accidentally copying part of a book twice. Example – when making a copy of a book that has chapters 1, 2, 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 12, you end up with a book that has chapters 1, 2, 3,4,5,6,7,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 12
- Deletion of a base pair. AATCTGTC becomes ATCTGTC
- Addition of base pair AATCTGTC becomes ACATCTGTC
- Transposition (like a mirror) AATCTGTC becomes CTGTCTAA
All of these can have no effect, an effect which is selected for, or an affect which is selected against.
To add information, first, take a functional gene, and make an extra copy using the duplication mutation. That won’t hurt the organism, since the second copy is simply redundant. Then use any of the other mutation methods so as to make the second copy do something new. The organism still has the original copy doing whatever it is supposed to do, but now has the added ability of whatever the new gene does. New information, new functions, and new abilities can, in small steps, take us from a fish to a person.
4. "evolution" is taught as both natural selection + new information from mutations (see #3). Both are needed. It's a misrepresentation to ignore the new information from mutations.
5. The evolution of many biochemical pathways is well understood, including ones that have all "neccessary" components. This is because evolution often works by building up a complex system, then removing parts. Thus, it see the full path, one has to think of what would be added to the system, then removed (like scaffolding). This has been known for a century, and creationists still hide that fact from people. Also- #5 here has a quote mine (the practice of taking a quote out of context to mislead people - it's basically lying). I'll mention when they happen again, and leave it to you research each one (or ask if one in particular you don't understand).
6. This is another misrepresentation. Science works using methodological naturalism. That means that non-miraculous explanations are considered first (and miraculous ones are outside the realm of science). So when a question of how something came to be arises, non-miraculous routes are looked at first. You do the same thing every day. If your car doesn't start, you first consider naturalistic explanations (dead battery? no gas?), before deciding that the Hindu god Ganesh has possessed your alternator.
7. The evolution of multicellular life is well understood, with transitional forms like Volvox still alive today. You can find out quite a bit about it online. Here's a start:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB922.html
8. Sex has many advantages, and many transitional forms are well known (for instance, many marine invertebrates can both reproduce sexually and asexually - sex evolved from asexual creatures who first evolved the ability to reproduce sexually in addition, then when some lineages reproduced sexually practically all the time, the ability to reproduce asexually was lost).
9. This one states outright falsehoods - tons of transitional fossils are known, and many lineages have long lines of transitional fossils. As elsewhere, the question lies to you by using a quote mine to convince you that there aren't literally thousands of transitional fossils. Geologists have confirmed that there are many transitional fossils (I can post their statement if you like).
10. Again a blatant misrepresentation that even a first year biology student would be embarrassed to read. Evolution in no way requires things to change over time. Species evolve in response to environmental change. In a stable environment, a species is expected to stay relatively unchanged for long periods of time.
That's enough for now. Many (both the above and the others) can be answered by looking them up in the index to creationist claims:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html and other sources of actual biology.
Best-
Papias
