It is bed-time, so I am only going to pick a couple and start with them. I'm not going to do the whole thing, nor am I going to complete the arguments I do start tonight. Besides, I'm sure the others would like to take a jab or two.
Originally posted by randman
1. Fossil record: stasis and sudden appearance.
Is this all there is to the fossil record? What should we expect from the fossil record, given what we know about how fossils form, and what evolution predicts? Are some long periods of stasis expected? Why or why not? What does "sudden appearance" mean? Does it mean that there were no primates before humans and chimps, that there were no anthropoid primates before humans and chimps, or that some novel features appear suddenly, while organisms themselves do not appear suddenly, but are preceded by similar organisms?
2. Recapitulation not being true, which is one of the reasons I initially beleived in evolution.
So, basically, you had poor evidence for evolution when you chose to accept it. That's fine. Its good, as a matter of fact. But that should have no bearing on weather you look at the rest of the evidence.
Recapitulation itself has always been defunct, since even before it was proposed, but developmental embryology still yields modest evolutionary evidence.
3. Abiogenesis, the idea that life can spontaneously generate from non-living matter. I consider this wholly unscientific, and worse illogical.
We were discussing data, not unfounded opinion or your version of logic. If it abiogenesis is unscientific or illogical, then please give us the data (or the logic) that make it so... If this is to be a real discussion of the "Data that does not support evolution", shouldn't you at least give us the data?
4. The religous ideological approach of evolutionists has convinced me not to trust their objectivity.
1) I wish you had phrased this "The religious ideolgoical approach that I PERCEIVE in evolutionists..."
2) Scientists are not objective. The purpose of science is to minimize the intrusion of bias on to the theory through rigorous documentation and peer review. Show us how this process has failed in only this particular field of science.
3) I suppose you reject creationism all the more strongly, then?
5. I think carbon-dating for coal is a problem. Why is there any carbon left to show up on the tests?
Contamination
in situ, probably as the result of U-Th series decay, but possibly by other means.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=3CC5FAD8.5070605@u.washington.edu
6. Polystrate fossilized trees.
What about them? Have you even read the Polystrate tree fossil FAQ at TalkOrigins?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
Specifically, what is your complaint, and how does it relate to evolution? How do the polystrate tree fossils "not support" evolution? At most, they are only even conjectured to support a global flood - apart from causing extinction of humans (even those 8 that survived), a global flood does nothing to disconfirm evolution - it only serves to strengthen certain claims that a literal reading of parts of genesis is reliable.
These are starters.
Good enough.
I predict that you are going to be digging a little bit deeper in the creationist bag of tricks to have any hope of defending your position.
