Those points do not disprove evolution.
1. Even if some fossils are slightly disfigured due to environmental, that still does not explain how there is such an obvious pattern in the growth and change of animals over thousands of years. Maybe in some instances the fossils are disformed and not an exact replica of what the original specimen was, but on the whole, it does not affect the much larger amount of accurate specimens. On top of that, even without relying solely on fossils, we can still observe evolution as it has taken place in our lifetime. Cmonkey cited the example of how rats have evolved and many are now immune to certain types of rate poison. Just saying that some fossils "may" have been disfigured does not disprove the theory.
2. Darwin was practically forced to renounce his views based on the environment he lived and grew up in. Many people in that time were so strictly and blindly religious that he was shunned for his reasonable views, and had he not publicly renounced them under this pressure, he could very well have been condemned to ::Dolphin Noise:: by the clergy of that time period. As a deeply religious man himself, Darwin mistakenly believed that he had almost no choice but to seek what was his only path to heaven.
3. The theory has been observed and demonstrated in the modern world. Other than the rat poison example, i can think of a particular instance involving butterflies. A certain type of tree died out in some part of the western hemisphere because of a disease. An entire species of butterflies that was colored to camouflage with that bark began to die off, because it no longer had its natural means of protection. Only a small amount of the butterflies, that happened to have different coloring patterns, survived. They therefore were able to reproduce and pass on this trait. While the others died, the species as a whole adapted to their environment, as a part of natural selection. That is a critical part of evolution as we define it today, and we can see that the species did actually evolve. That sounds like a tested example of evolution to me.
4. Fine, maybe God made us. I will admit that i know nothing for sure about this. I just think it is a terrible misinterpritation of the bible to think that everything in the bible needs to be a strict fact. The bible is not an entire book based solely on facts. It really bothers me that some people think that you can't be a Christian, or believe in the bible, and believe in evolution at the same time. I don't think that the book of Genesis strictly contrasts with the theory of evolution. If you were at the very beginning of the earth, and physically witnessed it, i don't think it would have physically looked anything at all like the book of Genesis describes it. That does not mean that i don't think the story is not true because of that. When you look at it, i think you need to look for the message it is trying to tell you. As my pastor said, the emphasis of the story is not on that everything in the Universe was created in 7 days. The story tells us that life is good. Life is a wonderful thing, and for those that believe in him, it is a gift from God, whichever form you believe he, she, or it exists as. It is a story of God's love, and not a story that should be used to explain physical truths of what occurred. It is quite possible to believe that species evolve, but that God plays an integral part in it all. Many scientists believe that there must be some sort of God, because otherwise there is no way to explain why the first collection of amino acids and proteins had that spark that turned it into an actual form of life. Steven Hawking for example, the genius that has furthered so much of our understanding of the Big Bang and the origins of the Universe, believes wholeheartedly that a God exists and that he created the Universe. The Big Bang may just have been the method that he chose to do it in. Otherwise, as far as i have heard, no scientest has a good clue as to why the Big Bang started, and why existance spurred from nothingness at that precise moment. It is just sad that people can't recognize that science and religion can, and maybe are meant, to exist and work together. As Einstein once said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."