"If evolution theory is correct, then explain to me how the moon was formed. Explain to me how the first sea animals migrated onto the land. Explain to me how galaxies form. Explain to me how the sun formed. Explain how the first living cell formed. Explain ..."

Apart from fallaciously lumping evolution theory in with numerous other disciplines of science, this argument is a simple attempt to make people waste their time.

The author obviously knows nothing about astrophysics, geology, biology, etc. So what does he do? He challenges everyone to rectify his own ignorance, by giving him a free overnight education in all of those fields of science (presumably, by condensing them into a few short sentences which he can understand). Better still, he intends to claim victory if you fail to accomplish the utterly impossible task of forcing him to understand scientific principles which he has made no effort whatsoever to study!

The proper way to disprove a scientific theory is to demonstrate that it fails to accurately model or predict natural phenomena. One cannot proudly hold up one's own ignorance of scientific principles as legitimate disproof of those principles. It isn't enough to say "I don't understand how evolution works." He has to learn what it is and what it predicts, and then show that those predictions are inconsistent with physical reality.

Like the primitive tribespeople who once blamed gods for everything from lightning to rain, creationists always assume that everything they don't understand is de facto proof of divine intervention. That is an irrational mindset, to say the least. One of the reasons for the technological advancements of the past century was the widespread abandonment of this mentality in favour of the scientific mindset.

Fallacy watch:

• Non sequitur (totally unjustified leap in logic from "I don't understand how the Moon formed" to "evolution theory is false").