Kinda prejudiced in the way you asked, dontcha think? :-)
The story of Adam and Eve is a parable. I don't expect it was meant literally even by the people who wrote it. I feel very sorry for the small-minded people who have to have the story be "true" in order to see any value to it.
Every human on the planet has a gene that, if it worked, would make us as furry as chimpanzees are. It doesn't work, it has a transposon (a type of genetic parasite) stuck in it. Without that transposon, we'd all have to pay a lot more for shampoo every month!
So, the question before the creationists is, wherefore doth we have it? Did God create us with a broken gene, complete with parasite, that we don't even want? Or were Adam and Eve furry? So far, I've only found one creationist willing to accept that Adam and Eve were hirsute people.
There are a thousand arguments like this. To date, creationists flee in terror from all of them, while presenting the same old, tired, long refuted nonsense in support for their cause. They cannot explain the pattern of genetic similarity. They cannot explain how the Great Flood hasn't left the entire surface of the earth salt-infused and sterile. They cannot explain how any species more complicated than a protozoa survived the flood. They've got nothing.
Responding to some of the nothing they have:
Population Growth:
Assuming a constant rate of population growth is simply naive and silly. We *know* the population growth hasn't been constant. Remember the black death? 60% of Europe *died*. That's not growth!
If we apply the same argument to fruit flies, we find that the entire earth is covered in fruit flies in a matter of days. Funny how that hasn't happened. It's almost as if populations do not experience continuous growth because limits are set by the environment!
Another fun fact about the constant population growth argument: If it's true, the Bible LIES! After all, at the time of Exodus, it says more people left Egypt than existed on earth at the time!
So, dump the rather silly population growth argument.
Dinosaurs:
There are NO human fossils found with dinosaur fossils. Not a single one. You're welcome to point out a specific exception. There are three sites showing "human" and dinosaur footprints, but Paluxy is a product of wishful thinking and some faking by townsfolk hoping to get more tourist dollars (they admitted this) and the other two (Tuba City and some site in Russia I don't remember) are just really bad fakes.
Dinosaurs are not lizards. Let a lizard grow forever and it will not turn into anything resembling a dinosaur. This is one of Carl Baugh's silly claims and it causes nothing but ridicule for creationists. Lizards belong to the suborder Laertes. They have sprawling legs. A large lizard has large sprawling legs. Dinosaurs have legs better mounted. Small dinosaurs have smaller legs. Small dinosaurs cannot be mistaken for lizards. (Well, if you're utterly ignorant about biology, I suppose they could.)
(At least Baugh stopped claiming that breathing pure ozone would help you live for hundreds of years, despite the fact that ozone is explosive and poisonous! But since when has a creationist needed to understand a subject before making declarations about it.)
Sea monsters as evidence? Gee, now that's desperate. I'm sure you'll present the physical evidence that dinosaurs were fire-breathing next, right? Sheesh!
Oh, and carbon dating has not been "proven wrong". Not that it matters. There are thousands of different dating systems. Carbon dating, by the way, only works on organic materials: NOT FOSSILS. Dinosaur fossils are NEVER dated by carbon dating. So, you're wrong. Again.
Law of Angular Momentum:
Um... because other collisions happen? I know, stunning!
Really dumb argument.
Historical records 6000 years old:
So? They're 6000 years old on a 4.6 billion year old planet.
Incidentally, isn't it strange how those same 6000 year old cultural records fail to record a global flood 4,500 years ago? In fact, they continue to record their culture without interruption right through the supposed flood! Weird...
No Missing Link:
Creationists maintain that all anthropoid fossils are "obviously" human or "obviously" ape with no possible transitions between them. The funny thing is, those same creationists cannot agree which fossils are "obviously" which. The fact that they cannot agree which fossils are "obviously" human and which are "obviously" ape pretty much demonstrates that they obviously not one or the other at all, but transitions:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html
The fossil record is full of transitions between types. Acanthostega links fish and amphibians. Diadectes links amphibians and reptiles. Diarthognathus links reptiles and mammals. In fact, the transition between reptiles and mammals is so good, they had to arbitrarily draw the line between the groups because WE CAN'T FIND ANY GAP. You'd think, with the fossil record being rather imperfect, there would at least be a little gap, but nope, not there!
Here is a list of hundreds of very much non-missing links:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Scientist recognize only one kind of evolution. Creationists invent dozens and pretend they're refering to science. This is called "arguing a straw man" and it is a logical fallacy. But then, illogic and falsehoods are really all they have.