1. Concerning the origins of life, you feel that though the chances of life forming without an intelligent creator are small it DID indeed happen that way. And yet you don't believe me when a rock, coming from my direction, hits you in the back of the head and I tell you, "I didn't throw it. There was a sudden shift in the earth's gravitational pull and the rock levitated into your head...Sure the chances are small but it DID happen that way."
The second scenario is impossible (and even if there was such a shift in gravity, everything else would have moved proportionately), but the first one isn't. It is merely unlikely (or so some would say).
2. When you're shown that your view of origins is silly, you can only respond, "Well...at least it's better than believing in some invisible SKY DADDY!"
I have yet to be shown that the scientific view of origins is silly.
3. When a Christian points out the impossibility of a biological system (or feature) forming by pure chance you accuse them of invoking a "God of the gaps". YET, when you are asked how a particular feature could come about solely by chance you invoke "Evolution of the gaps" (i.e., we don't know HOW but we do know that Evolution MUST have done it!)
Indeed, there are no systems that could have formed by pure chance. Evolution is not a chance-based theory. There are no known biological features or systems that cannot have formed by evolution by natural selection. I challenge you to name any. Please don't trot out eyes or bombardier beetles - those have been done to death and shown to be evolvable. (Even if they didn't actually evolve and were created intelligently, it is still true that they could have evolved.)
4. You claim antibiotic-resistant bacteria is proof protozoa evolved into a person.
No. Nobody sensible claims this. You are building straw men.
5. You insist that science is completely partial to all ideas, is not dogmatic and researches all possibilities -- except creationism and/or intelligent design.
It is open to all scientific possibilities. Creationism and ID are not scientific hypotheses because they are not falsifiable. They are not valuable explanations because as soon as you say 'God did it', you are back at square one because you then have to explain how God originated.
6. You claim Creationists don't research on evolution websites before debating against it. Luckily you caught this useful weapon against Christians at the evolution site you learned all about creation doctrine from.
'Cos they don't.
7. You think that every scientist who believes in Creationism and doesn't mindlessly accept evolution as a fact is a "kook," but you believe that Francis Crick (Nobel Prize winning co-discoverer of DNA), who reached into his nether regions and pulled out the "theory" of Directed Panspermia (which states with absolutely no support that aliens seeded the earth with life - see the movie "Mission to Mars"), is a great evolutionist scientist.
This is ad hominem. Crick was indeed a great scientist (it was actually Mendel who discovered DNA - Crick, Watson, Wilkins and Franklin found out what it was made of and named it) for his work on DNA. Anything else he believed did not detract from this. Newton believed in alchemy, and Einstein introduced an appalling piece of science into his early calculations called the cosmological constant. We should not therefore dismiss their works on gravity.
As an aside, panspermia does not explain the absolute origin of life (because it raises the question of how the alien life started), but this does not mean that life on this planet could not have started that way.
9. When a creationist points out problems with the evolutionist model you claim that the whole point of science is to answer problems like these. But if you can point out even one problem in the creationist model it should instantly be abandoned as absurd.
What problems with the evolution model? And if there are holes in a model with no evidence backing it up, it should indeed be abandoned.
10. You are a person who absolutely believes that life came from nonlife, yet absolutely deny the possibility of anyone rising from the dead.
These are not the same. Life came from nonlife, not from dead life. The first life was also not complex beings like us. When we die we undergo brain death and many other changes that make resurrection unfeasible.
11. You won't bet $10 on the football game because a 50/50 chance isn't good enough, but you have no problem gambling with your life on the nearly impossible odds of a cell randomly generating from nothing.
Cells do not randomly generate. They generate at specific times and according to specific needs (when they don't, we call it cancer). Nor do they generate from nothing - the cell duplicates its chromosomes, which 'swim' to opposite ends of the cell. The cell then splits in the middle, and the two new cells grow to the size of the old one. Also, what does this have to do with evolution?
12. Engaging the "slippery slope" fallacy, you think you can invalidate the whole bible by discrediting Genesis, since 'the whole bible either stands together or falls apart'. However, when a Creationist tries to invalidate the whole doctrine of naturalistic evolution by exposing the sheer improbability and lack of evidence of abiogenesis, you note this point as 'irrelevant'.
Go on then, expose this improbability and lack of evidence. Evolution is the most hated theory in existence, so if it didn't have any evidence going for it it would have been torn to shreds decades ago. Even if the origin of life without a divine creator were impossible, this would not rule out the subsequent evolution by natural selection.
