I agree with OP. As a bioengineer I'm definitely curious to know how living organisms work, but evolutionary theory as-is leaves me more questions than answers.
There are a lot of glaring holes in Chuckie D's evolutionary theory, but my favorite is the ever-true order cannot come from disorder. fully-functioning, self-replicating micromachines do not simply appear. wings do not simply appear. eyes do not simply appear. Desmosomes, anybody? It's freaking brilliant. Living tissues have the stamp of purpose.
Convergent evolution makes the whole idea twice as unlikely. And when you consider the fossil record, you must consider the elephant in the room that is "punctuated equilibrium." The dramatic overnight changes that must occur among so many different species all at once in discrete intervals drops the probability of evolution by random mutation to unfathomably low, yet it is purported to have happened multiple times this way.
In addition, geological and paleological sciences are barely a few hundred years old, and radioactive dating techniques are not dogma. There is not enough data to assert the accuracy of these methods. Even carbon dating was recently found to be error-prone, and that method is only good for 40,000 years or so. Extrapolating farther than your data is perilous. There is also the precision and accuracy of the instruments used to consider.
Also, talk of evolving bacteria is silly. Natural selection, not "fortunate mutation in the nick of time just before extinction" leads to superbugs, because those defenses must have already been present in some strains. They did not appear just as the penicillin showed up.
Since evolution is, after all, a biomechanical process, it cannot simply be proved by pointing to rock formations and comparing similarities between animals. There must be a proven process. When you consider that according to current evolutionary theory the creation of new genetic material is due entirely to random mutation, any good engineer would laugh. Optimization requires careful planning. Things left to themselves fall apart.
There is definitely evidence for changing life on earth, but I am not prepared to accept the current theory and even those who love to get degrees in the soft sciences would be better served by considering the facts more closely than by ridiculing those who have.
Dude, the evidence for evolution if outstanding. I don't know if you have taken general genetics/biology classes but if you go into molecular genetics or evolutionary developmental biology you will see the homology between basic units of cells and how one shift in chemical gradient during embryologists could lead to physical changes in an organism that evolution can then act upon. 
