Creationists, remember Galileo?

Quality of evidence! Galileo's evidence was based on direct observation, was testable, reproducible and could be falsified. The evidence supporting evolution falls far short of meeting that standard of quality.

This species has structures similar to that species so it means the must be related. (The evidence does not independently point to evolution, it is interpreted based on the assumption of evolution - and works equally well with creation).

The genes of these species are similar so that means they must be related: (Same as above, plus gene theory predicts that creatures with similar morphology and physiology would have similar genes because genes control morphology and physiology)

ERV's: Out of 10s of thousands of ERV's a handful are the same in chimps and humans. This allegedly proves relatedness. However when an ERV is in both a gorilla and chimp but not in humans or in gorillas and humans but not in chimps (in other words does not conform to what is expected) this is said to be due to separate infections. Neither proposition can be objectively proven or dis proven and there is nothing that prevents all of them from being from separate infections. This is what is called confirmation bias -- those that conform to what are expected are said to be evidence of lineage, those that do not conform to what is expected are said to be from separate infections... Pick one or the other please!

Fossil Record - looking at the past and interpreting the data based on the assumption of evolution. The fossil record does not directly lead to evolution, in fact the absence of any water tight examples of transitional forms directly contradicts Darwin's own predictions. The fossil record directly affirms a logical prediction of creation making it more strongly supporting of creation than evolution.

Natural Selection: Darwin's theory is not natural selection, Darwin's theory is that Species originated as a result of natural selection. Nobody seriously contests that natural selection occurs, what is contested is the notion that there is no limit to selection and it ultimately could produce a new species. This matter was Settled by Watson and Crick with the discovery of DNA. There is a hard limit to natural selection. At least 80 to 90% of the evidence cited for evolution is in fact just evidence of natural selection and does not prove anything that was not already known, understood and applied before Darwin was born.

Redefining terms: The most objective measure of a species is the ability to produce reproductive offspring. If this standard is rigidly applied there is not a single documented case of speciation in the animal kingdom. However redefining the term species to more subjective terms - positive assortive mating, reproductive isolation, calling reproductive offspring hybrids evolutionist have manufactured fallacious examples of speciation.

Mis-attribution: Asserting an event to be evolution which is later found to be the result of another mechanism. Bacterial changes in metabolic function resulting in resistance to antibiotics, or the ability to eat synthetic nylon was asserted to be evidence of evolution in action. Only closer examination showed that there was no change in the Chromosomal genes (meaning the bacteria was still the exact same species before and after) but rather changes in non-chromosomal RNA (plasmids) that handle metabolic processes. Anybody who saw the "Princess Bride' is familiar with the sequence where the hero consumed doses of a poison and over time built up a resistance. Nobody with half a brain would call that evolution, yet that is a direct analog of what is happening to bacteria that build up a resistance to antibiotics or began metabolizing nylon.

No, because it's not just some Creationists that are against evolution. There are plenty of well-respected scientists who don't agree with evolution too.

Keep in mind that evolution is a theory, just like Galileo had a theory about the earth revolving around the sun. The church dismissed Galileo before enough evidence to support his theory had come forward. The church did eventually agree with Galileo after they had enough time to process the evidence that came forward. Right now, there is not nearly enough evidence to support evolution. We don't understand any evidence that supports the theory enough to be able to explain evolution. So I think you're "jumping the gun" a lot here.

"Wasn't he vindicated?"

No, the Church treated him unjustly.

"What makes current claims against evolution different from claims against heliocentrism in the 1600s?"

Nothing... they're both theories, the thing is most people think the word "Theory" means hypothesis, when in reality "Theory" in science means "explanation of"

Also, Pope John Paul II supported evolution

The church has and always will make claims against science that contradicts their superstitions.

"The church says the Earth is flat, but I know it is round for I have seen it's shadow on the moon, and I trust a shadow more than I trust the church"

Ferdinand Magellan

Only that, thanks to the Internet, every fundamentalist wingnut who doesn't understand science can reinforce the backwards views of all the other science-haters. And yet they should be thanking science for the computer they use to do so - just one example of how the scientific method has made their lives better.

No i don't remember him. I wasn't around in the 1600s.

^Vindicated: proven to be right, which he was. Eventually.

Because that is provable and evolution is not - its simple do the math!