I usually stay in "lurker mode" in these kinds of threads. It's interesting to read, but I know that to spit my 2 cents in is like talking to a wall. Anyways, every once again I get provoked enough so that I just can't help myself.
First off, as said many times before. Theory of evolution says nothing about how life began. Nada, zip, njet. It is a theory of how life evolved (wow, who would have thought) after it began. NOT how anything came to life in the first place. Pasteur is biogenesis, not evolution. Say it with me, two different fields!
Sure, one can discuss abiogenesis, which is a relatively immature field, but do not mix it into a thread about evolution. Darwin has given his views in other fields than evolution, that does not make it a part of the theory of evolution. One would think that distinction is pretty simple to make, even though the fields are related.
Secondly, do NOT mix ID and the theory of evolution. Theory of evolution is science, thus the name theory. ID is philosophy or religion, take a pick. Saying a creator made it all can neither be proven nor falsified. In order for something to be a theory, there has to be way to falsify it. Most theories can never be proven (none, depending on how far you stretch it and philosophical you want to get, but that is again another debate). They can only be strengthened, weakened or falsified which means you have to throw them out the window. ID does not live up to this criteria, the theory of evolution does.
And just to have it covered. Hitler has nothing to do with anything, it's like bringing in the Spanish inquisition (see youtube).
I guess the last bit is even more futile, but lets take Rusky's post about DNA.
6-Because they are accidents in the genetic code, almost all mutations are harmful. Even if a good mutation does occur for every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect over time being harmful, if not lethal, to the species as a whole.
The fact that most mutations are harmful, does not exclude mutations that improve the individual. The net effect is not harmful, the offsprings with harmful mutations die, thus not spreading their mutation. The offsprings with mutations that make them more fit for survival, survive and spread their genes. I leave it as an excercise to calculate the net effect.
7-Evolutionists hope that with enough time and with enough mutations new genes for entirely new traits will be produced leading to the evolution of new biological kinds. There is no evidence that this can happen from accidental changes in the sequence of the genetic code, anymore than it's possible to change a romance novel into a book on chemistry by accidental changes in the sequence of the letters.
This also addresses Rusky's last post.
Let's take a mind experiment and just imagine how evolution of the eye would come into place. There are lots of places on this earth without light, where living creatures have neither eyes nor color, because it would just be a waste of energy. Let's say we put some of these creatures in a habitat with light, where they would be able to survive.
After a few thousand/millions/who knows years, a mutation appears, with cells that are light sensitive. Some of these creatures can suddenly tell night from day, maybe there are more predators at night. These creatures surive and multiply, light sensitive cells becomes a relevant factor. This goes on for long periods of time. If you compare the timespan to how long human civilization has existed, it's like comparing the moon to a grain of sand. You can observe these kinds of changes on a small scale (butterfly colors etc.) - major changes are just small changes over a long timespan. That's all there is to it.
I see there are a lot of other questions. But they kick in all directions, attacking everything from grammar to my uncles skills in Alex Kidd, to not really having a point at all. I'm not an English major, it's not even my first language. But I do know the difference between science, religion and philosophy. Please don't confuse them, it's almost painfull to read.
There are lots of areas and facts about evolution which can be disputed, and they are on a regular basis in the scientific community. As mentioned before, scientists are competitive. They love to put eachother down, sometimes I believe even more so than creationists do. But they usually do it in a scientific matter, disputing scientific facts. Not rambling on about soups and bullshit straw arguments.
!
