Here's something I always wondered about where evolution was concerned.  If we humans "evolved" from apes, why are there still apes?!?  Did the apes we have in the world take a stand and say, "No way, man.  You ARE NOT getting ME to be a human.  They are SO GROSS.  I'm happy being an ape, and I'll just stay an ape, thank you."  It makes no sense.  In my understanding of evolution, something changes from what it was to something it needs to be in order to adjust to changes in climate, environment, or some other factor.  If this is true, the previous "thing" is no longer.  It morphs into another "thing". 

Your response illustrates two of the most common misconceptions people have about evolutionary theory. First, evolution is not goal oriented; your statement that "something changes from what it was to something it needs to be in order to adjust to changes in climate, environment, or some other factor" is in error. What evolutionists believe is that changes in the environment simply change the odds of any specific creature's likelihood of successful reproduction. If, for example, being tall makes you better able to get food, then taller individuals will eat better during times of food shortage, and being well fed increases their chances of successful reproduction. Tall individuals tend to have tall offspring, and the cycles repeats generation after generation, slowly nudging a population in a new direction. In a population without variation, the game is a lot shorter - everybody starves to death. This is the key reason ecologists are concerned about maintaining both biodiversity of species and genetic diversity within each species.

Your second error is one that is commonly espoused by creationists. In reality, neither Darwin nor any other scientist ever said that man evolved from apes. What evolutionists do believe is that man and the currently existing apes may have had a common ancestor in the past, which is quite a different thing. There is not requirement that one species "becomes" another species. It is believed that a single species can become two or more species over time by separation mechanisms. One well studied example is that of the Grand Canyon squirrels, in which a single population of squirrels became divided by the erosion that resulted in the Grand Canyon. Over time, the squirrels on the north rim accumulated mutations that were slightly different form those accumulated by the squirrels on the south rim, and eventually the two groups of squirrels became two different species. In this example, but groups seem to have changed, probably due to changing environmental conditions, but it's equally possible to have one group change and the other remain stable.

One of the best books to help you cite dozens of scientific evidences against evolutionary theory is "The Collapse of Evolution" by Scott Huse. It is a 9 dollar book that I keep on hand for my speech students who choose to do a persuasive speech against evolution.

In it, the author offers scientifically-verifiable evidence that the earth is very likely several thousand years old instead of the billions of years that some scientists would have you believe...which would not give any species enough time to evolve from protoplasm. It also gives evidence that the laws of thermodynamics would have to be broken in order for evolution to be true.

I highly recommend the book, as it steers the argument away from strictly religious/emotional pleas to more rational ones.

Here's something I always wondered about where evolution was concerned.  If we humans "evolved" from apes, why are there still apes?!?  Did the apes we have in the world take a stand and say, "No way, man.  You ARE NOT getting ME to be a human.  They are SO GROSS.  I'm happy being an ape, and I'll just stay an ape, thank you."  It makes no sense.  In my understanding of evolution, something changes from what it was to something it needs to be in order to adjust to changes in climate, environment, or some other factor.  If this is true, the previous "thing" is no longer.  It morphs into another "thing". 

Highly religious people have a simple answer for this one: Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that men evolved from apes. According to Genesis, all men and women are descended from Adam and Eve, and for the strict Christian, there can be no other answer to the question of evolution.

The scientific objections to evolution are usually revolved around proof.  Creationists claim that there is no proof that man, as complex as we are, could evolve in the way Darwin claimed.  The less sophisticated argument is that we could not have come from monkies.

A big objection to evolution comes from William Paley's "Teleological argument". Simply put, it goes like this: if you are walking in the woods, and you suddenly find a pocket watch ticking away on the ground, you know it did not just grow there. The existence of the watch implies that somewhere there is (or was) a watchmaker.  It's obvious that a watch is a complex piece of engineering with many delicate parts that must interlock perfectly for it to function; everyone will readily agree that a working watch cannot be assembled by chance; therefore, someone must have designed and made it. This argument then extends the logic by saying that the universe is much more complicated than a watch, so it, too, must have had a designer/creator, for the same reasons.

If there's a creator and creation, there's no need for evolution to explain species.

A major issue cited by most people who do not believe in evolution is the idea that the workings of the body are too complex to have evolved step by step.  For example, people argue that the eye is a very complicated mechanism and could surely not have evolved.  All the parts, it is said, need to be just how they are and so they could not have evolved separately because the whole thing would not have worked in any other configuration.

Another issue some people have is that there is a lack (to them) of proof that evolution has happened.  They do not believe the fossil record shows evolution happening.

You may want to Google this.  Maybe a link like this will help get you started.

When discussing the topic with my children they always bring up the fact there is no way that we, as humans, evolved from apes. They find the concept both silly and religiously inaccurate.

I, on the other hand, find that aspects within nature automatically evolve. If they did not, it would lessen their ability to survive.

Simplistically, we are always evolving. The 'noticability' of this may be minuscule at times, but we must evolve.  The earth and need to survive simply does not allow for anything less.

I am not an expert on this topic, but I am happy to start the ball rolling for you. One problem I have with evolution vs. intelligent design is the way that nature is so impossibly diverse. Are we really expected to believe that all the beautiful life forms we have on this planet have evolved from one single cell organism? If this is the case then the earth and its lifeforms must be much much older than we currently believe, as to create such different life forms such as dinosaurs, whales and humans would have taken eons. This points towards some measure of intelligent design in at least setting up the world and then allowing certain species to evolve to fit their natural environments.