Let's take a look at this fine collection of creotard wankery shall we? Sit back everyone, because this is going to be a long point by point rebuttal. :)
1. Which evolved first, male or female?
Absurd question. They appeared contemporaneously. Moreover, they did so from a more ancestral condition. For an example of what this condition might be, see yeast cells, which have a sexual reproductive system that is based upon a condition that is less differentiated than true male and female. For those who are interested, look up the MAT genes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae and their operation.
2. How many millions of years elapsed between the first male and first female?
Absurd question. See  above.
3. List at least 9 of the false assumptions made with radioactive dating methods.
None. Scientists have been working assiduously to identify possible sources of error in radiometric dating and eliminate them, as anyone who has read the peer reviewed scientific literature knows only too well. Look up isochron dating as an example of a technique that not only eliminates errors, but allows corrections to be calculated upon detection of transport in a sample.
Oh, and if you want to try and claim that the underlying physics of radionuclide decay is based upon "assumptions", it isn't. It's based upon direct empirical observation. Which was performed by people such as Becquerel, Röntgen and the Curies. Allow me to illustrate how it works.
Step 1 : Surround a sample of a known quantity of radionuclide with appropriate detectors.
Step 2 : Count the emissions corresponding to decay events using those detectors.
Step 3 : Plot each of these counts against time. You should see a nice curve appearing. Now it's time to determine the form of that curve.
Step 4 : As a double check, compute the first differences of your counts, and plot them against the original counts.
Step 5 : Now, plot the logarithms of your counts against time. The result should be a nice downward sloping straight line, indicating that the original relationship was of the form N=C × exp(-kt), where C and k are constants to be determined.
Step 6 : From Step 4 above, you should also have a straight line sloping downwards. The gradient of this line should be the same as that obtained in Step 5, thus providing you with two means of alighting upon the decay constant k.
Step 7 : From Step 5, you now know that radionuclide decay obeys a differential equation of the form:
dN/dt = -kN
where N is the amount of radionuclide remaining, and dN/dt is the rate of change of the amount of substance over time. Solving this differential equation using elementary calculus yields the solution:
N = N(initial) × exp(-kt)
where N(initial) is, surprise surprise, the initial amount of substance you started with, and k is the decay constant. By more algebraic manipulation, you can find the half life from:
T = k ÷ ln(2)
which should line up quite nicely with the point on the curve obtained in Step 3 corresponding to the moment when only half of the radionuclide was remaining.
This is how real scientists alighted upon the decay law 100 years ago. As you can see, they started with experimental data. No "assumptions" involved.
4. Why hasn't any extinct creature re-evolved after millions of years?
Absurd question. Look up "nested hierarchies" and see why this is absurd. Any creature that evolved to fill a niche long after a previous incumbent became extinct, and which resembled that previous incumbent, need not even evolve to fill that niche from the same line of descent. Devonian fishes capable of limited traversal of land, for example, were Sarcopteryigan Rhipidisitan fishes. The modern Mudskipper, which is also capable of limited traversal of land, is an Actinopterygian perciform fish, which means that it arose from a different lineage than the Rhipidistians. Albeit one that in turn shared a common ancestor.
5. Which came first:
...the eye sockets,
...the eye muscles,
...the eye lashes,
...the tear ducts,
...the brain's interpretation of light?
Oh dear, the dreaded eye evolution canards writ large.
Well the eye came first, in the form of photosensitive receptors, constructed from clusters of photosensitive proteins. Unicellular organisms possess these, such as Euglena. They also appear on some multicellular organisms. A depression or pit for the photosensitive receptors appeared next (see Planaria for examples of creatures possessing this type of eye), followed by the pinhole eye (pit deepens to form a cup, aperture reduces in size, thus allowing the photoreceptors to perform true imaging in an array, thanks to the pinhole camera effect which is well understood in physics, and which was used by Renaissance artists (see camera obscura). Next, formation of a transparent (to light) window over the pinhole eye facilitated the development of internal structures, whereupon the lens appeared courtesy of the appearance of segregated zones (aqueous & vitreous humour) and the emergence of crystallin.
The connection to the nervous system was a later phenomenon. This we know because unicellular organisms don't have a nervous system as understood in modern terms, but evolved light sensitive patches of protein to provide themselves with orientation depending upon ambient light, and detection of circadian rhythm. Therefore connection of the first proto-eyes to a nervous system post-dated the appearance of proto-eyes themselves.
In the case of chordates, subsidiary structures such as an eye socket and eye muscles were later developments still. Eyelids appeared later, Eyelids appeared later, with the move of tetrapods to land, and presumably are coeval with tear ducts. Eyelashes are restricted to mammals, and thus are a considerably later development.
See also this video clip.
As for interpretation of visual stimuli by the brain, this has been developing continuously ever since the first lineages with a nervous system and proto-eyes coupled thereto arose.
Oh, while you're at it, look up Warnowiids. These are single celled organisms with a complex light sensing system. To make matters even more interesting, they are plants. To be precise, they are dinoflagellate algae. That's right, they're effectively plants with eyes. From the Tree of Life website's entry on dinoflagellates, here's what they have to say about Warnowiids:
The ocelloid found in warnowiid genera is a complex organelle showing extraordinary resemblances to metazoan eyes, but at a subcellular level. It is entirely comparable to vertebrate eyes. Ocelloid types of different complexity and location in the cell are known.
6. How many millions of years between each in question 5?
Look up the requisite molecular phylogenies for the first groups to contain the various features, and the dates in question are in line with those phylogenies.
7. If we all evolved from a common ancestor, why can't all the different species mate with one another and produce fertile offspring?
What a stupid question.
Because reproductive incompatibility arose between diverging isolated lineages. In the case of chordates, much research is currently focused upon the major histocompatibility complex genes as a driving force in this, because  these genes are among the fastest diverging in chordate lineages, and  these genes are responsible for 'self' versus 'nonself' determination from an immune standpoint, so it makes eminent sense that they should also be implicated in species identity. Indeed, these genes are considered to be major players in Cichlid speciation, which is why various scientists studying the radiation of, for example, the Lake Victoria Superflock, are concentrating a lot of attention on the MHC genes. Likewise, these genes are likely to be implicated in the population divergence event connected to Cynotilapia afra in Lake Malawi. Indeed, the scientists who wrote the relevant scientific paper documenting this state explicitly in their paper that they anticipate this leading to a speciation event. Which, when it occurs, will be the first documented instance of a speciation event with an accompanying genetic audit trail. The relevant paper is:
Hybridisation and Contemporary Evolution in an introduced Cichlid Fish from Lake Malawi National Park by J. Todd Streelman, S.L. Gymrek, M.R. Kidd, C. Kidd, R.L. Robinson, E. Hert, A.J. Ambali and T.D. Kocher, Molecular Ecology, 13: 2471-2479 (21 April 2004).
For those who are interested, that paper is a free download. :)
8. List any of the millions of creatures in just five stages of its evolution showing the progression of a new organ of any kind. When you have done this, you can collect the millions of dollars in rewards offered for proof of evolution!
Except that Hovind is unable to pay out because he's in jail.
Meanwhile, how about this paper on electric organs in Mormyrid fishes?
Molecular Systematics Of The African Electric Fishes (Mormyroidea: Teleostei) And A Model For The Evolution Of Their Electric Organs by John P. Sullivan, Sébastien Lavoué and Carl D. Hopkins, Journal of Experimental Biology, 203: 665-683 (26th January 2000) [full paper downloadable from here]
Sullivan et al, 2000, write:
We present a new molecular phylogeny for 41 species of African mormyroid electric fishes derived from the 12S, 16S and cytochrome b genes and the nuclear RAG2 gene. From this, we reconstruct the evolution of the complex electric organs of these fishes. Phylogenetic results are generally concordant with earlier preliminary molecular studies of a smaller group of species and with the osteology-based classification of Taverne, which divides the group into the Gymnarchidae and the Mormyridae, with the latter including the subfamilies Petrocephalinae (Petrocephalus) and Mormyrinae (all remaining taxa). However, we find that several genera previously recognized by Taverne are non-monophyletic. Within the Mormyrinae, the genus Myomyrus is the sister group to all the remaining taxa. Other well-supported clades within this group are recovered. A reconstruction of electrocyte evolution on the basis of our best-supported topology suggests that electrocytes with penetrating stalks evolved once early in the history of the mormyrids followed by multiple paedomorphic reversals to electrocytes with non-penetrating stalks.
The paper continues in detail with:
Evolution of the mormyroid electric organ
Because of the remarkable diversity of electric organ discharge waveforms among mormyroids (Hopkins, 1980, 1981, 1986, 1999b; Hopkins and Bass, 1981) and the corresponding diversity of electric organs, we examined the evolution of the electric organ in mormyroids using a simplified version of our tree (see Fig. 7). We incorporated into this tree all high or moderate confidence suprageneric nodes, collapsing the low-confidence nodes e and f in Fig. 5. In addition, for the sake of simplicity, we collapsed clades of single genera that were found to be monomorphic with respect to electrocyte anatomy into single terminals (e.g. the clades of Petrocephalus, Mormyrus, Stomatorhinus and Pollimyrus species). Furthermore, we removed Mormyrops masuianus from this tree since its position within the Mormyrops clade was not strongly resolved and its absence would have no effect on the reconstruction.
We observed six types of electrocyte among the species included in this study. These data are summarized in Table 1. Type S electrocytes found in Gymnarchus niloticus are stalkless. There are two major categories of stalked electrocytes. In the first, stalks arising from the posterior face of the electrocyte are non-penetrating and receive innervation on the posterior side (non-penetrating stalk with posterior innervation, type NPp, shown in Fig. 6E for Petrocephalus bovei). All fish with electrocytes of this type produce simple biphasic electric organ discharge (EOD) waveforms. In the second category, the stalk penetrates through the electrocyte. Several different forms within this category are observed. In the simplest of these, the stalk penetrates through the electrocyte to the opposite side, where it receives innervation. Electrocytes with stalks arising from the posterior face that penetrate through to receive innervation are called type Pa (penetrating stalk with anterior innervation, shown in Fig. 6I for Myomyrus macrops). Those with stalks arising from the anterior face that penetrate through to receive innervation from the posterior face are called type Pp (penetrating stalks with posterior innervation). In Brienomyrus brachyistius and Brienomyrus niger, the stalk penetrates through the electrocyte a second time to receive innervation on the face from which it originated (doubly penetrating stalk with posterior innervation, type DPp). Species of only one genus, Pollimyrus, have both doubly penetrating and non-penetrating stalks (type DPNP). In contrast to Bass (1986a,c) and Alves-Gomes and Hopkins (1997), we find all species of Stomatorhinus have type Pa electrocytes. The EOD waveform produced by each electric organ morphotype is a function of the direction of current flow through the stalk and the relative order in which the anterior and posterior electrocyte faces depolarize (see Bass, 1986a,c).
At the base of the mormyroid tree, we use the parsimony criterion in conjunction with available developmental data to choose a most likely scenario for electric organ evolution. The sister group to the mormyrids, Gymnarchus niloticus, has stalkless (S-type) electroctyes and an electric organ fundamentally different in structure and organization from the mormyrid adult electric organ (Dahlgren, 1914; Denizot et al., 1978, 1982; Kirschbaum, 1987). While the Gymnarchus niloticus organ and the mormyrid adult organ are clearly homologous at some level, we believe the most immediate homologue to the electric organ in Gymnarchus niloticus is the larval electric organ in mormyrids, which develops soon after hatching and degenerates as the adult organ develops (Denizot et al., 1978, 1982; Kirschbaum, 1987, 1995). Both are present in the medial part of the deep lateral muscle rostral to the caudal peduncle. In both, the electrocytes are arranged myotomically, with myofibrils present, and in both only the caudal electrocyte face is electrically active, so the EOD waveforms are monophasic. This is in contrast to the adult electric organ of mormyrids which is restricted to the caudal peduncle, in which the myotomic arrangement has been lost, myofibrils are largely absent, both electrocyte faces are electrically excitable and EOD waveforms have both positive and negative phases.
Given this, there exist two possible reconstructions for the electric organ at the base of the mormyroid tree (node 1, Fig. 7). First, the common ancestor of all mormyroids may have had an electric organ and electrocytes much like that of Gymnarchus niloticus. In this case, the developmentally separate adult electric organ present in living mormyrids would have evolved in the immediate common ancestor of mormyrids (node 2, Fig. 7). Alternatively, the common ancestor of all mormyroids could have possessed separate larval and adult electric organs, as do extant mormyrid taxa, and a subsequent paedomorphic loss of the adult organ took place in the lineage leading to Gymnarchus.
We favor the first scenario for the evolution of electric organs. If the origins of the larval and adult electric organs are considered as two separate evolutionary steps, the first hypothesis represents the most parsimonious reconstruction.
In the subfamily Mormyrinae, one form of non-penetrating stalked electrocyte (NPp) and four forms of penetrating stalk electrocyte (Pa, Pp, DPp and DPNP) occur in extant taxa. All electrocytes examined from Petrocephalus species in the sister subfamily Petrocephalinae are of type NPp. In addition, ontogenetic study of the electrocytes in Brienomyrus brachyistius, which have penetrating stalk electrocytes, has demonstrated that the developing, but functional, electrocyte first passes through a stage identical to the NPp condition before penetrations develop (C. D. Hopkins, unpublished observations). Similar observations in Hyperopisus bebe and Mormyrops deliciosus were made by Szabo (1960). For this reason and because penetrating stalk electrocytes are absent in the basalmost lineage of mormyrids, we hypothesize that NPp is the primitive condition for the mormyrid electrocyte (node 2, Fig. 7).
Above this node, MacClade generates two equally parsimonious reconstructions when the electrocyte is coded as a binary character with states corresponding to non-penetrating and penetrating electrocyte stalks (all varieties of penetrating stalk are treated as a single character state). Both reconstructions require eight steps. In the first of these, penetrating stalks originate four times from ancestors with nonpenetrating stalks, and there are four reversals to the nonpenetrating condition. In the second reconstruction (shown in Fig. 7 and equivalent to a reconstruction using the ACCTRAN algorithm), the penetrating stalks originate once in the common ancestor of the Mormyrinae, with seven reversals to nonpenetrating stalks at the nodes numbered 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13 and 14. We favor this latter reconstruction since we regard multiple independent origins of a particular modification to an ancestral and ontogenetically antecedent morphology as less likely than a single origin followed by multiple paedomorphic reversals.
Superimposing the four forms of penetrating stalk electrocyte (Pa, Pp, DPp and DPNP) onto this reconstruction, additional patterns emerge. Electrocyte type DPNP is shown to have originated once in the genus Pollimyrus, while type DPp has evolved twice, in the distantly related Pa-type ancestors of Brienomyrus niger and in Brienomyrus brachyistius.
The remaining form of penetrating stalk electrocyte, type Pp, is known only from several species of Mormyrops (e.g. M. zanclirostris and M. masuianus in this study). This electrocyte is simply reversed in anterior/posterior polarity from type Pa. Within the genus Mormyrops, other species possess Pa-type electrocytes, including Mormyrops deliciosus (Gosse and Szabo, 1960) and Mormyrops curviceps (Moller and Brown, 1990), while still others have type NPp (e.g. M. nigricans in this study).
Make the cheque payable to the authors of the above paper. :)
9. Why is it that the very things that would prove Evolution (transitional forms) are still missing?
Absurd nonsense. Look up tetrapods. Here's an incomplete listing of the tetrapod lineage:
Eusthenopteron ... 385 million years ago
Panderichthys ... 380 million years ago
Tiktaalik ... 375 million years ago
Acanthostega ... 365 million years ago
Ichthyostega ... 362.5 milllion years ago
Hypnerpeton ... 360 million years ago
Several other taxa have been added since I compiled that list.
Indeed, Tiktaalik was predicted to exist before it was found. Not only was it predicted to exist, but it was predicted to possess specific features and to exist in a particular geological stratum before it was found. Moreover, the fossil was found where it was predicted to exist, and upon detailed examination, was found to possess the precise anatomical features that were predicted in advance by evolutionary biologists and palaeontologists. Here are some nice illustrations of anatomical comparisons:
So, since scientists knew what to look for in advance, found the fossil of Tiktaalik where it was predicted it would exist, and found that Tiktaalik possessed the anatomical features it was predicted to possess on the basis of it being an intermediate step between earlier creatures and later creatures in the sequence, we can consider this confirmed set of predictions validated by real world evidence to be yet more support for the existence of a sequence of organisms in various stages of development between Rhipidistian fishes and land-dwelling tetrapods, as if, of course, all the other fossils cited above weren't enough to begin with.
Then there's the theropod to bird lineage:
Shuvuuia ... 81 million years ago
Protarchaeopteryx ... 122 million years ago
Sinosauropteryx ... 122 million years ago
Sinornithosaurus ... 122 million years ago
Caudipteryx ... 125 million years ago
Beipiaosaurus ... 125 million years ago
Yixianosaurus ... 125 million years ago
Jinfengopteryx ... 125 million years ago
Sinocalliopteryx ... 125 million years ago
Cryptovolans ... 130 million years ago
Dilong ... 130 million years ago
Microraptor ... 130 million years ago
Archaeopteryx ... 155 million years ago
Pedopenna ... 160 million years ago
Epidendrosaurus ... 170-120 million years ago (date yet to be more precisely determined)
Scansoriopteryx ... 170-120 million years ago (date yet to be more precisely determined)
An interesting scientific paper is this one which contains an extensive family tree of theropods and pre-Avian dinosaurs, namely:
A Basal Dromaeosaurid And Size Evolution Preceding Avian Flight by Alan H. Turner, Diego Pol, Julia A. Clarke, Gregroy M. Erickson and Mark A. Noreli, Science, 317: 1378-1381 (7th September 2007)
This paper includes a good number of illustrations of the fossils of a recent discovery among the Dromaeosaurids, namely Mahakala omnogovae - indeed, the paper describes the holotype. Which means I've now listed 17 species. Which, when analysed using the tools of comparative anatomy, demonstrate clearly that these organisms possessed some features shared with reptiles, and some features shared with birds, with a gradation toward increasingly bird-like features as one moves to more recent specimens.
Oh, and whilst dwelling on this, someone needs to learn some basic biology.
YOU are a transitional form. Transitional between your parents and any offspring you may have. And if you are tempted to doubt this, ask yourself one simple question. Are you identical to etiher of your parents? The obvious "no" answer provides you with the information you need.
10. Explain why something as complex as human life could happen by chance, but something as simple as a coin must have a creator. (Show your math solution.)
Scientists do not postulate that complex multicellular eukaryotes arose by "chance", as if they were conjured up out of thin air (as opposed to the creotard version of biodiversity, which has creatures magicked out of thin air by an invisible magic man). Scientists postulate that well defined mechanisms were involved, and that whilst historical contingency played a role, the effect of historical contingency consisted of changing the region of the solution space that selection could explore.
As for example mathematics that apply, try this paper:
Ecological Bistability And Evolutionary Reversals Under Asymmetrical Competition by Fabrio Dercole, Régis Ferrière and Sergio Rinaldi, Evolution (International Journal of Organic Evolution), 56(6): 1081-1090
Have fun with their differential equations. :)
11. Why aren't any fossils or coal or oil being formed today?
There are fossils being formed today. Millions of them at the bottom of the African Rift Lakes, for example. As for oil or coal, that requires the deep burial of organic matter followed by the application of millions of years of heat and pressure. Exercise a little patience will you?
12. List 50 vestigial or useless organs or appendages in the human body.
I seriously doubt that there are that many. But this is properly a question for a human anatomist.
13. Why hasn't anyone collected the millions of dollars in rewards for proof of evolution?
Because the people offering these alleged "rewards" are creotard fraudsters who shift the goalposts and erect totally unrealistic and unscientific conditions as barriers.
14. If life began hundreds of millions of years ago, why is the earth still under populated?
You think over 6 billion humans is "underpopulated"?
Oh, and do you know how many Collembola can be found in the average cubic metre of soil? If you think the planet is "underpopulated" once you learn that, then you need to develop a grip on reality.
15. Why hasn't evolution duplicated all species on all continents?
Historical contingency and differential niches. Any more stupid questions?
OK, I'm done here. :)