My objections are a whole lot simpler than what you list: I don't think evolution happened, not the 'molecules-to-man' kind of thing I presume you're talking about. So, have you got another example? The scientific method says we should be able to reproduce the results as often as possible, right?
Objection: But evolution can not create complex form and function (CFF)!
Response: Even if the currently understood mechanisms of evolutionary theory fail to account for all biological phenomena, we know that pure chance and necessity can indeed create CFF, since computers do it all the time.
I don't follow you here - what do you mean by computers creating CFF by pure chance and necessity? Oh, I bet you the evolutionary computer. This is circular reasoning, no?
Objection: But computers can only create CFF because they were designed by people!
Response: Once they are created, computers can create CFF. And they create CFF all by themselves, without guidance, by operating according to pure chance and necessity.
Well, no, I guess you do mean literal computers. I don't follow you - bits and bytes are my line of work, so I don't know what you mean by pure chance - other than using Johnson noise in cryptology or something, a computer is a deterministic beast (sometimes you doubt that, but sure enough you left a semicolon out somewhere).
And I don't know what you mean by 'chance and necessity' I guess. I think most people mean noise when they talk of chance, i.e. wideband excitation, but I don't know what you mean by necessity. Are you referring to the 'laws of nature' being deterministic?