In TF2, I'd imagine my counter-arguments (re: 'your mom' jokes) would be constructed as follows:

I can't believe your mom just stumbled my way "by chance" when she was loaded that night.

How do you evolve without being step-son to most of the country, the way your mom is?

The idea that your mom is not naked in my room right now is only a "theory".

...You might want to switch it up with 'your sister', or if you think they might be really homophobic, 'your dad' jokes instead.

Seriously, the number of players in TF2 that have more firing synapses than the contents of the pizza box I'm eating from are likely outnumbered by 10 to 1 by those who don't.

Don't be silly. Don't you know being a christian automatically makes you a expert on evolution? Why would they actually need to read a book.

alas... all the while i was thinking "How on earth is any of this possible?" then i realized you were talking about the PC version... *sniffle*... poor me and xbox live

What's an XBox?  

Seriously, the last console I bought was a Super Nintendo. 

I just saw a facebook group created by someone I know for my old school. In the related groups box was "Evolution is a LIE!"

Oh wow,another christian group bandwagoning on attacking something they know nothing about. The groups info seemed to consist of 25+ anti evolution quotes from 'scientists', and no actual evidence or argument againt evolution.

I can't believe I used to be like them

Do you see, how it is always "either you're with us, or you're against us"? Anyone, who doubts an abiogenesis and evolution is instantly labeled as a cultist, fundie, theist, or an idiot. Your  patience for a discussion  probably ran off, by countless explaining it to theists, who doesn't mostly listen, anyway.
But there is still more to explain, than just appealing at good old Darwin and a molecules in primordial oceans.
Does anyone here know Crichton's bat paradox? It's basically a problem in timing and adaptation, and a big hole in Darwin's theory. I think I mentioned it somewhere around. Anyway, what we today observe as evolution, is rather different to original Darwin's theory. Darwin knew that and RRS knows it too - I heard it in one of the free shows.
You can find it as a problem of "irreducibly complex system", an example of system, which is a too big leap for evolution. Crichton meant such a system as one kind, a bat for example, but nowadays we see, that all living organisms consists of thousands of such irreducibly complex systems, extremely complex, compared to anything in non-living nature. An irreducibly complex systems doesn't provide any quick advantage for species, so they shouldn't ever be passed down. And yet whole life is based on them.  Huh.
I'm not against evolution, I just want it clear and reasonable, without overlooking it's mistakes. I haven't been ever specially educated in evolution (just some elementary school stuff), so I don't know, how these advanced facts are explained today, maybe you do. Maybe they're already explained, including the bat paradox, but in that case I don't know why it isn't gloriously propagated as an important part of the evolution theory. It rather looks like the ever-so-loud evolutionists keeps silence about them. Yes, I heard or had read an "explanation" about the case of eye construction, but that seemed to miss the point, and it didn't explain the thousands of other cases. 

Also, I can't understand, how an act of abiogenesis can ever happen. It is a similar problem, all we're supposed to have, is a chaotic movement. A chaotic movement doesn't make any combinations, it creates homogenously chaotic pattern, there is no chance of creating anything so structured as a DNA. Chaotic movement, the enthropy, works against any more complicated combinations of mollecules. The universe itself doesn't have enough of time to wait for a single primordial sea to fill with life by a simple chance.
Even DNA itself is not enough, it must already have fully working cell to sustain, repair and copy it, otherwise it won't survive, it won't even be alive. The simplicity of viruses isn't a possible explanation, they're merely a parasites on cells.

So, please, have you ever heard such an arguments? I believe you did, they're not new. I think, that evolution theory would convert more theists, if it woulnd't have this gap in it. So far, it only convinces those who look at it closer, to stay or become theists.

Wow, thanks.
Are you sure Behe's theory has been refuted? (I'll do some search on it) The irreducibly complex system may be explained on microscopic level, like an organ, but on a macroscopic level it's more diffcult. A change of one separate species on another meansentering a period, in which the species can't survive in their "old ways" and yet can't use new methods of survival, until, for example, a set of completely new organs grows to them. There is a relationship between species, but not one surrounded by a corpses of half-evolved misfits . The evolution is too succesful, there wasn't found enough of mistakes, not enough for a theory, based on them. As far as I know, only whole species were found, (not only in a fossil form) accustomed to their environment.
If evolution is as we think today, it can not be shut off, why all species doesn't constantly mutate and fill all possible environments? Turtles and crocodiles are as old, as dinosaurs, for that time, there should be variety of them around, accustomed for most of Earth's places and climates.

If are self-replicating molecules so possible, why we doesn't see them around much? I can imagine, that primitive forms of life  mostly got extinct, because they breathed sulphur oxide, but the only self-replicating molecules I ever heard of were prions, causing BSE. If they can exist just from a dead matter, they should be also today plentifully present in the nature.In fact, DNA isn't a self-replicating molecule. It's an informational record, which is read and performed by a cell, and this record says to replicate and how. The replicating aparatus of a cell is always functionally the same. DNA must contain not only an information for self-replication, but also a replication of the rest of the cell, and even of the whole, very complicated organism. This is impossible without a communication with other cells, without a consciousness.

Self-replicating molecules works purely on a basis of chemical reaction. Also, I'm not sure, if there can be any change with them. The simplier the molecule is, the more it is vulnerable to any changes. A DNA can have countless combinations and still be readable, but a simple molecule is drastically affected by any change in it's structure.
There is a difference, between chemistry and informatics. It's the same difference, like between a smoke raising to the sky, and a message in Morse's code, encoded in the smoke signals. Yeah, I had some classes of philosophy of science and language. I don't say I agreed with everything there, but I recognize some things in the discussion.

The basis of this argument is true - we research things created by laws of reality, by which things around behaves. (also the patterns in so-called chaos) These laws already been here and are all very precisely tuned to have the universe, like it is today. The possible versions of universe with different physical constants are various, but they have something in common - much lesser complexity and variability. You know, only blue suns, or matter falling back again towards the point of Big Bang. What we have today, seems like the best settings. So far, I've never heard of any scientific idea, that if such and such physical constant would be a bit different, the universe would be so much better place for everything. All changes I've ever heard of, would mean a lesser complexity of the universe. If that's true, it really means something.

As it seems, these questions are taboo for critically thinking people, because the only answer for them, seems to be "Gawd". But again, I emphasize, the question is not who, but how. You can answer it to theists if you want. We don't even have "god" defined, and the definition of theists doesn't work. It's not an excuse to ideologically forbid a research the of reality itself, there are the greatest discoveries, awaiting us. These phenomenons must be studied, for a benefit of mankind. It requires to change the way how do we look at the world, a new look unlocks new possibilities.  A "God's barrier" can be defined as a problem, which can't be solved by a different approach or more facts. I've gained some insight in it, I can say and it is definitely still far away.

WTF???

How could there be people other than atheists and theists? I never ehard of a semi-theist. Maybe someone who believes in a god some days but not others? Maybe they don't believe a couple days a week, then one day they believe in Jesus, one day they believe in Thor, one day the Flying Spaghetti Monster....

This is incorrect. Behe has indeed been refuted. THe problem is that his theory misses out on two basic concepts. The first is co-evolution. The second is exaptation.

Co-evolution recognizes that where two or more parts in a system "interlock", they did not start out that way. Their antecedants could exist seperately. It is only when they symbiosed that they became mutually dependant. Consider a very simple example. The mitochondria and chloroplast in modern Eukaryota are descendants of cyanobacteria according to endosymbiosis theory. Prior to the endosymbiotic event, the bacteria and anaerobic Eukaryota could survive without each other, albeit at a disadvantage due to the oxygen in the environs. However, once endoymbiosed, what constituted "deleterious" and "advantegous" obviously changed. The Eukaryotic cell could now evolve machinery dependant on aerobic respiration. The bacteria could now have much of its genome migrate to the nucleus. Modern mitochondria require transcription and translocation from the nucleus to the cytosol and into the mitochondrial membrane. Because the two components could now evolve certain systems provided that they stayed with each other, we say they "evolved into" each other. As such, they quickly became mutually dependant. But of course, the antecedants, anaerobic Eukaryota and mitochondria, did not start out that way. They only became interlocked once they had endosymbiosed.

A similar principle holds true for psuedogenes. The genomes of all organisms are littered with redundant copies called homologs which provide a way to track evolution and construct large scale phylogenic trees. If a gene duplicates and is accidently inserted into the genome, a process which usually occurs when cell division fails, it will most often be inserted adjacent to its copy. This makes one of them redundant. As such, one of them is not bound by the normal conservation that occurs in gene sequences when an important gene mutates. Genetic mutation is usually given in terms of base pair changes per unit time, and this is predicted by how important the gene is to the organism. The more important, the more conserved. This principle works because when a critical gene is mutated at a critical spot, it is likely that the mutation will be deleterious. As such, more conserved genes mutate more slowly over time. The greater the rate of mutation over time, the less conserved the gene is. This rate is usually given with respect to a molecular clock based on a set of discarded amino acid fragments called fibrinopeptides. When one gene copy is redundant, the principle of conservation will no longer hold, which means that one is free to mutate solely on the basis of random frequency. This means most of the time that one will undergo an irreversible deactivation mutation that produces a stop codon that makes the gene functionally useless becaus transcription is termined prematurely, which is irrelevant since the homolog works just fine. The useless copy is called a psuedogene. But if both undergo a partially deactivating mutation (to understand the concept of a partially deleterious mutation, it is necessary to understand gene regulatory motifs, which I cannot introduce here since the topic is huge) then both are required, and hence both conserved. This is a principle upon which a large number of intracellular singalling pathways, developmental pathways in multicellular Eukaryota, and intercellular communication is generated. Looking in hindsight, it appears that such pathways "interlock". They need each other. But of course, as you can see from above, they didn't start out that way. It is important not to fall into this trap.

The other thing we should consider is exaptation. The problem at hand for irreducible complexity is the fickle notion of "parts". Now, the recombination of genetic material can extend far above the level of single proteins or domains. Indeed, enormous chunks of genetic material may be recombined. Hence, when examining homologies, we can examine relationships that go up to the quaternary level, caused by large order duplications or recombination. Indeed, we are often tempted to think of evolutionary increment as “adding parts” or something of that like. This is a very primitive design-style worldview of looking at evolution. Indeed, the process can add parts and delete parts via these mechanisms, but this is a rare occurrence (begging the question of what a single “part” is anyway). Many complex biomolecular structures can generated by the recombination of pre-existing structures into a new role, which is a rapid-order mutation, instead of incrementation to generate the whole structure in question, incrementing generates some of the underlying mechanisms of the structure in question, and then these underlying protein structures may recombine to rapidly form the product structure. If only two or three pre-existing major components are required to generate the new and supposedly “irreducible” function, then it can be generated by what is called exaptation which is, as described, a process by which major structures (which may have no relevance per se to the function which they recombine to form) recombine and create something, which, when broken down into its fundamental constituents, appears irreducible. However, this misses the big picture of how evolution works and how functions often coalesce to form new ones by recombination, since this is generated in one or two steps, selective pressure all the way is still achieved. Now, this is true of many structures and functions, such as blood clotting (the whole chain is homologous and formed by serine duplication) or the flagellar motor (all homologous proteins, but comprised of the recombination not of individual proteins, but rather pre-existing structures, such as, in this case, the Type III secretor system of bacterial toxin pumping).