1. Attacks on mainstream science.
Let's see the evolutionists are always ignoring mainstream science. They still, years after it has been disproven continue to call DNA not in genes 'junk DNA'. They also refuse to accept some of the many scientific discoveries which have shown that life from inert matter is impossible.
2. One-dimensional analysis. To evolutionists everything is 'natural selection'. Never mind that destruction never creates anything. Nevertheless they firmly hold on to the idea that 4-2 = 6.
3. Distortions of mainstream theories. The best example of this is the evolutionist's distortion of the Nobel prize winning discovery of hox genes on fruit flies. A mutation in a fruit fly gene resulted in a second set of wings on the fly. These new wings replaced a set of stabilizers on the back of the fly. Evolutionists called this an example of evolution at work. Problem is that the fly was less fit with these wings than with the stabilizers because the new wings did not work and the old stabilizers did work as they were supposed to. This is not just one example of course, almost all speciation and mutation examples by evolutionists have this same fault.
4. Refusal to examine contradictory evidence. Evolutionists are really good at this. They refuse to consider anything which contradicts their theory such as that species can adapt to their environment. That bodies can and do adapt to changing circumstances from something so simple as a sun tan to the changing of body shape which many athletes undergo - all this and more without mutations.
5. Exaggerated complexity. Another trait of evolutionists. Somehow, if one reads these threads one quickly notices that evolutionists cannot explain anything in their own words but always need a long link or even a whole site as "evidence" for what they say.
6. Use of scientific terms as meaningless "key words". Evolutionists are great at this. Let's just mention a couple of words they use 'homologous' and 'paralogous'. Now one would think that there must be some deep scientific meaning for these big words, however all they mean is 'similar'. The only reason for their use is to give an air of scientific respectability to what is essentially utter nonsense. There is no scientific definition of 'similar', it just means whatever an evolutionist wants it to be.
7. Unverifiable sources. The great evo site TalkOrigins is a great example of this. Not only do they seldom give sources for any of the evidence they have, but even worse, they often even refust to give their names to the articles they write - they are so ashamed of their own drivel.
8. Ignorance of energy requirements. This is itself a good example why abiogenesis (life from rocks) is impossible. It takes a tremendous amount of energy to form the DNA and all that life requires. Just the sun's energy is not sufficient to sustain life. One needs living organisms to make and use the food that life needs through complicated mechanisms which could in no way have arisen by chance.
9. Appeals to authority. Evolutionists constantly claim that no real scientist disbelieves in evolution. Of course, anyone who disagrees with it is tarred and feathered as not a real scientist.
10. False, fraudulent, or inapplicable credentials. Evolutionists are great at this. The number of frauds is endless. The first one known is Haeckel's fraud of painting the embryos of different species just about all the same to prove his theory. This fraud is still in many school textbooks decades after it has been disproven. In paleontology there are numerous ones from Nebraska man, Piltdown man, to the feathered dinonsaur from China a few years ago. With regards to speciation, the moths were a fraud and the Darwin finches were just an assumption that they were unable to breed with each other. And even after shown they could bread between the so-called species, the evolutionists continue to call them different species. So even after their frauds are disproven, they continue to tell the lies.
11. Outright fraud. Already covered in full above.
12. Leap of faith Oh this is an amazing one for evolutionists! Let's look at what the charlatan Darwin said as 'proof' of the eye evolving:
He who will go thus far, if he find on finishing this treatise that large bodies of facts, otherwise inexplicable, can be explained by the theory of descent, ought not to hesitate to go further, and to admit that a structure even as perfect as the eye of an eagle might be formed by natural selection, although in this case he does not know any of the transitional grades. His reason ought to conquer his imagination; though I have felt the difficulty far too keenly to be surprised at any degree of hesitation in extending the principle of natural selection to such startling lengths.
From: Origin of the Species, Chapter 6
13. Hothouse publication. Look for articles published outside of the world of scientific journals, This is the best one of all! What hypocrisy! Stargazer.net! Yeah right, they have the knowledge of the Martians!
Beam me up!
Ironically, it's even a scientific axiom that life from inert matter is impossible. link