http://www.reachingforchrist.org/apologetics/fallacies.php
Most of which I've heard before, there are some very good points made, though. Now I know that the big bang, the "spark of life" etc etc are not actually part of the theory of evolution, but it does depend on them to some extent. For instance, Evolutionists believe the Earth is billions of years old (despite the fact it doesn't look that old and various other problems that contradict their dating methods).
"It is also commonly asserted by evolutionists that it takes at least a hundred thousand years for a star to "evolve" from a red giant to a white dwarf. That is also patently false. Egyptian hieroglyphs from 2000 B.C. describe Sirius as red. Cicero, in 50 B.C. stated that Sirius is red. Seneca described Sirius as being redder than Mars. Ptolemy listed Sirius as one of the six red stars in 150 A.D. Today, Sirius is a white dwarf. (Paul Ackerman, It's A Young World)"
"Dr. Ernst Mayr, one of the world's leading evolutionists has stated in debate with Dr. Duane Gish that if it could be proven that humans and dinosaurs lived contemporaneously, the "theory" of evolution would have ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS IN SCIENCE. Just recently (1997) over two hundred pounds of frozen, UNFOSSILIZED dinosaur bones were found in Alaska and in some of these bones red blood cells, hemoglobin, and DNA were found. According to the evolutionary theory the last dinosaur lived about 62 million years ago. How could collagen, DNA, proteins, red blood cells, and hemoglobin be preserved for 65 million years?
...
"Svante Paabo has done extensive research on the decay of the DNA structure and has analyzed mitochondrial DNA in a "Neanderthal" skeleton. In Scientific American Mag. in an article entitled "Ancient DNA," Paablo has concluded that even without water and oxygen at all, background radiation would erase all traces of DNA in 50,000 years. Others give a figure of a 10,000 year survival rate for DNA. (Nature, August 1, 1991, Vol. 352, p.381) Still far less than the 65 million years that evolutionists need."
Upon further research it became apparent that there have been other cases of dinosaur bones found in the 90's that had not completely fossilized. That simple fact alone is enough to show the specimens are not millions of years old. You could also look at an article which targets only the dino issue:
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v3i8f.htm
Anyhow, as you can see there is no real explanation as to how red blood cells could be so old. The theory for evolutionists is perhaps they are not red blood cells at all (but that can't be proven), or perhaps they're foreign cells not from dino's. In either case, it would disprove the theory of radiometric dating altogether, for the simple fact that these specimens are either not the age they should be, or they have been demonstratably contaminated. That is to say if the red blood cells are foreign, than the samples are contaminated and thus disproves radiometric dating, and if they're not then the dinos are much younger than 65 millions years old - and again disproves radiometric dating.