I'll do my best dude.

That's exactly right. There is also a neat hypothesis that a magic man lives in the sky and sent a cosmic Jewish zombie to the earth to tell people to drink his blood. But until there's any concrete evidence to back it up, it still remains just a possible conclusion.

See what I did there?

Evolution, as a theory, has mountains of "concrete evidence" backing it up, from the fossil record to structural homologies to genetic homologies to laboratory data. Creationism? It has no such evidence. Science works by examining evidence and generating theories which are tested against that evidence. An untested theory is called a hypothesis. If a hypothesis holds against the evidence for repeated trials by several scientists, it can become a theory. A theory is the highest level an explanation can reach in science. If the evidence does not support a theory, it is simply thrown out and a new one is put up in its place. Far from being thrown out, the theory of evolution by natural selection has been strengthened by continuing discoveries and evidence in the fields of genetics, homology, geology, paleontology and biochemistry.

They died for whatever reason they said they died for. If Jesus actually existed, he died for whatever he said he died for. There is absolutely no contemporary historical evidence to even suggest that Jesus existed, let alone that he was the son of god or performed miracles of any sort.

We don't know yet. String theory and the multiverse theory predict that it came from a collision in higher-dimensional space. There is no experimental evidence for this yet, so any explanations we have are quite tenuitive. The new particle accellerator in Switzerland might shed some light on the matter, though.
 

Again, we don't know yet. But current theories predict that it came from the release of energy after the big bang. Where did this energy come from? We don't know. But multiverse theory suggests it came from the gravitational potential energy between our universe and another one.
 

They are coincidental results of the initial conditions created by the big bang. Again, this is at the very frontier of science.
 

What do you mean? Into protons and electrons? It is the simple result of the laws acting on matter and energy. Most matter is actually unknown (or "dark&quot, and we don't know its properties. Further discoveries should shed light on this and all of the above questions.

The gravitational potential energy between our universe and another one. Again, this is only a tenuative explanation.

When: about 4.4 billion years ago (if we're talking about earth)

Where: Primordial oceans of earth

Why: Broken question. Does not compute.
 

How: Randomly drifting proteins experienced a selective force. Those able to reproduce themselves survived. Those that didn't did not. Earth was already rich in amino acids and clay-based catalysts at the time to facilitate this.

See above.
 

A haploid clone of itself. The first sexual reproducers probably experienced an alternation of generations between diploid and haploid forms. The "first" sexual reproducer was probably an error during mitosis which produced a haploid cell. Two haploid cells can merge to form a diploid cell. If enough members of the population have this mutation which causes cells to undergo meiosis, they could be favored in the population because it would promote genetic diversity.

The sex cells themselves were probably the result of asymmetric sizes of haploid cells which over time became selected (one large cell for the embryo, many small cells to fertilize it.)

Note though, that sexual reproduction evolved many times, in plants, fungus, protists and animals.

No no, its the genes which must survive, not the individuals. Individuals in a species are merely the vehicles of genes and the protectors of gene survival. A child of an organism represents an extra copy of that organism's genes. It is therefore in the best interest of the parents to protect children. There is actually a complex formula for the costs and benefits of having more children or holding off. What is important to realize though, is that genes are selected in a population, not individuals, and that individuals represent "packages" of genes that sometimes work and sometimes do not.
 

This is a bit fallacious, because the "letters" of DNA, the G's C's A's and T's, have not changed for the entire history of life. Indeed, there was only one change, that from RNA to DNA, which was probably purely accidental. The "words" of life, proteins, are variable, and are represented by strings of DNA.

Recombining, copying, adding and deleting English letters can indeed produce words, which, when vocalized, are recognizable Chinese. Indeed, recombining English letters can produce a Chinese book, given that the person reading it can transcribe the sounds created by English into recognizable Chinese. In the same way, RNA and DNA are directly transcribable into what is really important about them: proteins.

Possible. But likely? Another field, homology, supports the idea of a common ancestor instead of a common creator. A famous example of homology is the relationship between reptilian jaw bones and mammilian ear bones. Reptiles have two jawbones with structures similar to those of the tiny ear bones of mammals. Reptiles lack those two bones in their inner ears, while mammals lack the exact two bones that reptiles have in their jaws. It goes to reason that Reptile jawbones somehow became adapted to become inner ear bones while a certain population of reptiles evolved into mammals. Otherwise, there would be no explicit reason for a creator to use those bones and delete the existing bones in mammals, which weakened their jaw bones at expense of better hearing.

Also, why would we observe that different animals appear at different times in the fossil records, mostly following the pattern of homologies that we find in living animals? Why would they not be created all at once, or if not that, at times that do not correlate to the observed homologies and relationships we find in living animals?
 

This is true; it is called the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. Unfortunatley, the HW equilibrium only occurs in large populations with no changes in environment and totally random mating, with traits that have no deleterious or advantageous effect on the organism's survival. With changing environments, varying population levels, and traits that have definite advantages, natural selection tends to favor organisms which can best adapt to changing environments and compete with other organisms, this generally leads to more complexity.

Also, it's a common misconception that "no new genetic information" can occur. There are more mutations than point mutations. There are also additions, deletions, reversals. A tiny change in genetic information, say a single inserted base pair, can have dramatic effects on the  proteins coded by whatever it was inserted into.

I don't feel I have to answer the "where" and "why" questions anymore, so I will answer the how and when questions.

When did plants evolve? About 3  billion years ago. They evolved from a group of prokaryotic bacteria called cyanobacteria. Cyanobacteria resemble the chloroplasts of modern plants, and live in huge colonies called stromatolites. An early ancestor of eukarytotic organisms probably formed a symbiotic relationship with Cyanobacteria. Eukaryotic organisms were  more efficient than the bacteria, and provided an easy way to protect themselves against predators. The eukaryotic organisms received free glucose from Cyanobacteria, and eventually went on to become the first multicellular plants. Multicellularity is something that comes naturally to eukaryotes. The first multicellular organisms probably resembled algae.

Single-celled animals evolved from a seperate line of eukaryotic organisms sharing symbiosis with prokaryotic bacteria. Single-celled animals developed a symbiotic relationship with the bacteria that eventually became the nucleus, the mitochondria, and the peroxisomes. Eukaryotic animals are known as protists. They are an incredibly diverse group of single-celled animals. Benefits of being Eukaryotic included larger surface area, more stability, and a more complex and versatile system of coding proteins. There is some speculation that early animals were photosynthetic, like the euglena, but that at some point in evolutionary history, it became more advantageous for them to abandon their chloroplasts and become 100 percent heterotrophic.
 

When: About 400 million years ago.

Where: Brackish waters near carboniferous forests.

How: Lobe-finned fishes (similar to the modern day coelocanths) required a way to get oxygen out of the brackish, dirty waters in the shallows. They gradually evolved lungs out of the vascular tissue at the base of the throat. Their lobed-fins allowed them to navigate the debris-filled waters and find prey. Early amphibians probably filled the same niche as crocidiles today: large, shallow-water predators. Eventually, some were able to spend a considerable amount of time on land, where they could feed on insects and avoid competition from other fishes.
 

When:  In the devonian period, shortly after amphibians evolved from fishes.

Where: Swamps of the carboniferous devonian forests.

How: Amphibians began spending more and more time on land. Some developed into large predators. They couldn't get too far from the waters, though. This led to extreme competition among amphibians, and left an unexplored niche for amphibian life deep within the forests. A group of amphibians called Amniota began producing eggs with a leathery coat filled with amniotic fluid which was somewhat watertight. Their skin was also somewhat leathery and watertight. The Amniota were able to move further into the forests and take up more of an ecological niche. Over time, natural selection favored Amniota with more leathery skin, and which produced eggs with harder shells. This eventually led to the development of reptiles, which after the devonian period became the dominant vertebrates on land.
 

When: Late Jurrassic period, about 150 million years ago.

Where: All over the world, but many of the earliest fossils have been found in southern Germany.

How: First, dinosaurs began adopting a fuzzy coat of down feathers to insulate themselves, providing limited endothermy. This is especially true of young dinosaurs, which usually molted within the first few years and lost their feathers. Natural selection over time favored dinosaurs with more feathers due to the rapidly cooling climate before the post-cretaceous ice age. A tiny tree-dwelling dinosaur called Achaeopteryx was probably the precursor to modern birds. It lived mainly in the trees, but tended to forage for food on the ground. Natural selection would have favored Achaeopteryx's which  could jump from a higher distance in the trees without sustaining damage. This led to a general increase in the amount of feathers on the dinosaur, and over time a greater aerodynamic efficiency, until it was able to glide down from the trees. After the extincition of the dinosaurs, birds filled a much greater ecological niche, and developed many of the features now seen in modern birds.

 

Alright, I'm getting tired of this shit.

All of his arguments are arguments from ignorance, so from now on, I'll just point to a source describing all of his questions in detail, arranged by much smarter men than me who do this for a living:

http://www.newsroom.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=444
 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9310196

... look it up.

1. The "digestive system" did not exist in early animals. Early animals were like sponges. They sucked in photosynthetic plants and metabolized them by breaking down their bodies within cells called amoebacytes.

Here is an article on the evolution of digestion:

http://www.cnsweb.org/digestvertebrates/WWWEdStevensTopicsEvolution.html

The ability. Early reproducers had no "drive" to reproduce. It just so happened that those which did reproduce survived and passed on their genes. The "drive" was a later adaptation.

1. Oxygen from cyanobacteria. Other gases from formation of the Earth.

2. Throat for digestion (though technically it was both a throat and an anus.

3. lungs and mucus together as lungfishes became amphibians.

RNA. DNA later replaced it because it was more stable.

The termite, which probably fed on other decaying matter and gradually adopted the adaptation of the cellulose-digesting flagellum.

Plants, which produced spores. Spores could be spread by animals. Natural selection favored flowers to attract insects. Insects had already evolved from crustaceans  and fed primarily on plant matter and each other.

1. Blood.

2. Muscles to move blood and contort hydrostatic body.

3. Ligaments in cartilolidgenous fishes.

4. Bones in bony fishes.

1. Hormone system (in cyanobacteria, for communication).

2. "Repair system"

3. Nervous system.

The need for it. Viruses existed long before any form of life.
 

How about Allah? Vishnu? Buddha? Flying Spaghetti Monster?

If you're not right, you've got just as much to lose as any atheist.

theotherguy did a great job,and I don't really have anything to add. I just want to say this pisses me off.Why is it christians can know absolutely nothing about evolution,but still attack it like they have all the answers. They expect every atheist to have a degree in biology, and if you don't know the answer to some complex question evolution is instantly proven false! Most of them barely know their own religion,but we have to know everything.