Yes, I have seen ALL of that, it does NOTHING to change my views. The theory of evolution is still the best theory we have to explain the FACTS at hand.
ID/Creationism and all other "theories" that use god are not science, they are religious.
Sure, you can try to come up with stuff to refute evolution, and that is just fine, as long as those refutations are scientific and are able to be studied by other scientists and confirmed.
Otherwise it will be tossed out with the rest of the theories that have been tested and have failed.
When more then 20% of scientists are convinced to start questioning the validity of the Theory of Evolution,then you will get my attention, but you're not even close to 1%, so it is just another passing attack that will die of it's own nonfactual and nonscientific basis.
“…before Copernicus developed the heliocentric model of our solar system, most scientists believed that the planets and the sun revolved around the earth. Yet many astronomers of the time noticed that planets sometimes exhibited "retrograde motion" where they would temporarily move backwards in circular paths, unpredicted by the geocentric theory. This, according to geocentrists, was the result of "epicycles" where planets not only revolved around the earth, but also around a central point along their orbital path. An epicycle was therefore an additional explanation used to resolve inconsistencies between the scientific data and predictions from the now-falsified geocentric model of the solar system. Had these astronomers had a different sun-centered theory of the solar system, they would have quickly realized that these "retrograde epicycles" were merely the result of the earth's annual orbit around the sun. “
“In the same way, proponents of naturalistic theories of descent now develop "epicycle-like" explanations to resolve apparently falsifying data. While descent hypotheses could potentially be falsified by this data, these "auxiliary hypotheses" (i.e. punctuated equilibrium, miraculous genetic duplications and co-optations, lateral gene transfer, hopeful lack of data) do serve to preserve the original theory of descent. However, in the process, they force the primary claims of common descent, namely the fact that all organisms are related through ancestry and evolved by mutation and selection, into an unfalsifiable position. “
“In his book, Kuhn notes that a theory in "crisis" will develop such auxiliary hypotheses to save the core tenets of the theory. As seen in the geocentrism example, false hypotheses can survive for hundreds of years before enough "quirks" in the data develop to force some scientists to look elsewhere. However Kuhn observes that scientists will generally not consider abandoning a paradigm or important theory until they are able to replace it with a new paradigm which can better explain the "quirks" of the old paradigm, "...a scientific theory is declared invalid only if an alternative candidate is available to take its place."
“Since the time of Darwin, evolutionists have known about the weaknesses of the theory of evolution and descent with modification. Yet, they have not abandoned it simply because they say, "it's the best theory we've got". Descent, through these "ad hoc" hypotheses, has been forced into an unfalsifiable position, lest it be falsified. “