The fossil record is notoriously unreliable. It proves nothing. It's evidence of little. Do you really think the brontosaurus acutally existed?
2) Observed instances of speciation. See BMCDA's ring-species posts on this thread just for two examples.
Speciation is not macro-evolution.
3) Molecular clock evidence (phylogenetic trees that parallel the preexisting morphological ones).
Molecular clock evidence isn't holding up. Proteins seem to change more erratically than first assumed. Here's a link to a study at the University of North Carolina.
4) The ability of the evolutionary model to explain what we see and predict things we should not see.
I've always heard this. Usually, though when examples are provided they are disappointingly anti-climatic. Can you provide an example? Remember, we are talking about macro-evolution.
5) The lack of any other model with even a pretense of real information content or usefulness as a framework.
I think this might be the real point. The model is broken but it's all people have so they hang onto it like a starving dog hangs onto a bone. If the academics who set standards stop defending this theory with such strident fear, we may get a better, more useful model.
Here's a couple of other links that call it into question since you probably wouldn't trust a self-declared Creationist:
link 1 (This guy assumes evolution to be true)
link 2 (An intelligent design proponent.)
Yes, although the species was renamed "apatosaur." Why would you not think it existed? Don't tell me you're one of those "the fossil record is a conspiracy to damn us all to perdition" fellas.
Yes. They call it the Apatosaurus now but the species is still studied. If it's been overthrown, you have a scoop. (Oh, that's right. You already have a scoop. There has been no evolution.)
Usually, though when examples are provided they are disappointingly anti-climatic. Can you provide an example? Remember, we are talking about macro-evolution.
I can't tell you how this sounds this far along on this thread. gore3000 told me a long time ago that, for all you can tell from a fossil, there were mammary glands on dinosaurs.
Yes, that sort of soft tissue has not been preserved. And ID, with it's non-second-guessable Designer, seems to have little to say on the subject.
Evolution has a line of reasoning that says there were no teats on a T. rex. I've challenged gore, who likes to model things with evolution to show how impossible it is, to reproduce this simple syllogism. He has so far failed. Aquinasfan failed to answer on this one as well.
Maybe you can help them out. Why does an evolutionary framework say Mrs. T was a flat-chested as Mr. T?
I think this might be the real point. The model is broken but it's all people have so they hang onto it like a starving dog hangs onto a bone.
On this point, you're supposed to defend how ID really tells you something. To continue to attack evolution here is to stay stuck on the last item, which is where you feel more comfortable.
I can see why you don't want to defend ID as science. It's the most pitiful of contentless shams.