Sonnikke, everyone else has done a good a job of rightly taking your examples apart (and that last one I have no idea what you are talking about) so I am going to do something really bizarre and agree with one of your points!
Oh people are probably going to jump on me for this, but I'd welcome a true rebuttal of Sonnikke's position on homology.
Unlike all of the other examples--- which have not one bit of circular reasoning in them--- homology has been used by some scientists in a very circular way.
While a person can use homology to build a theory of evolutionary development (creating a model to explain what is seen), one cannot then say "look at the similarity of these things, that proves evolution is true."
I wish scientists, especially those writing ToE stuff, would watch their philosophy.
That said, not all scientists use this logic (even niles eldredge pointed this problem out in his latest book), and just because some do does not reduce the ToE itself.
ToE is the best model so far for explaining the "likenesses" we find, and the changes in these likenesses through time.
I have yet to hear a Creationist or ID model which gives an adequate explanation of anything we have found, especially with regards to the changes of likenesses through time (this may be why Behe admits ToE... it IS the best current model).
Sonnikke, now that I have admitted there is some bad circular reasoning made by some ToE scientists, and you did not deny my point that Creationists use circular logic (merely stating "nyah nyah, you gus do it too"), can we both agree that circular logic is BAD, and so you not use it anymore?
I'll be posting replies to your "evidence" posts, and I'd love for you to respond without the circularity.
holmes