Wow, I'm glad to see such interesting, well mannered discussion going on here!
A few comments ...
Without evolution you can't explain many species that existed in the past that are similar yet different to modern species (like that tiny horse thing). Evolution doesn't really go against the bible if you take it metaphorically though.
I don't think many people will debate micro-evolution, that is slow gradual changes within species. That sort of evolution is not against the Bible. However, if by evolution we're talking about uncaused and random occurances that happened to lead to the creation of life and then, eventually, to the creation of today's animals including human beings due totally to chance, then that certainly does go against the Bible, since it entirely removes God from the equation. (At least, the God of the Christian Bible, at any rate.)
Besides the "one day = 1000 years to god" argument doesn't work because the bible was written by humans, not god.
The "Day Age Theory", as it is often referred to, is usually based around the fact that the Hebrew word "yom", which is translated as "day" in Genesis the OT, can also be translated in other ways, and is often used as meaning a "extended period of time". Just quickly checking one of my books here, Hugh Ross claims that "Unlike English ... biblical Hebrew has no word other tham yom to denote a long timespan." And also, "Early scholars [in the first few 100 years after Christ's death] accepted that yom could mean 'a long time period'." So, the 1,000 years view is not necesarily just a metaphor, it may be a different translation. I'm not saying this view is totally right, just that its quite possible.
That brings me to another point; why Christianity instead of Islam or Mormon (both are just Judaism v3.0 like Christianity is v2.0)?
This is an excellent point. I think the answer is that unless someone believes in total relativism (that is, that absolute truths do not exist - I hope none of you strongly believe that no truth really exists), I think the main difference for me between Christianity and (for example) Islam or Mormon is that there is that:
1) The story of Christianity is deeply rooted in historical events that were recorded very close to when they occured, and preached about in the very same places that the events occured.
2) Christianity is (afaik) better validated historically than any other religion.
I cannot comment specifically on Islam, since I do not know enough about its specific history. However, from my study (before becoming Christian and after) it is apparent to me that there is much better historical and philosophical evidence for Christianity than for Mormonism. For an example from Mormon history, Joseph Smith supposedly translated the Mormon "Book of Abraham" from Egyptian hieroglyphics scrolls (before hieroglyphics were decyphered). Unfortunately, when the code of hieroglyphics was figured out years later, it became apparent that Smith had not translated the scrolls, and in fact the scrolls he claimed to translate had nothing to do with Abraham or the Bible. ie, he had faked the whole thing, and there is absolute proof of his fakery ...
Does evidence like this mean that Christianity is (hesitates to type the word) "better" than Mormonism? I'd say that it is more coherent, based on historical and logical evidence. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm of course not saying that Mormons are bad people or any such thing. Mormons that I have met have been very nice people. I'm suggesting however that someone must choose one religion over another because they believe that it is
true based on external and internal evidence, not based on which one is the latest & trendy, or "well it doesn't really matter which one you choose just pick one that works for you".
BTW, I apologize rolling my eyes at Scientology, that was not particularly graceful on my part. But as someone who has done some reading about the history and practices of Scientology and their adherents, I must say that I do not give much credence to their belief system.
Well it's arguable that you can't prove anything in the world, so it's best to just rely on logic. Thes links I provided in my second post in this thread do a better job explaining that Judaism/Christianity/Islam are false than I could.
Of course, if someone were able to argue conclusively that you can't prove anything in the world, they would have just contradicted themself.
Anyways
I would agree that it's very difficult to prove anything in our world conclusively. That doesn't mean that we don't believe that many things are true without 100% conclusive undeniable proof. People proceed on something like inference to the best explanation. The only question is, which explanation is "best"? And what criteria determine what "best" is anyways?
Hmmm ... how about this question: Since God's existance cannot be proved or disproven, hypothetically, would it be better if God existed or did not exist?
I hope that all makes sense, it is true to the best of my knowledge.
Sorry i mentioned it! 
But remember this. Science can not prove how "everything" began, and it has no idea what happens when you die. Only the hope in a God can help you there.
)
The New International Version, New Living Translation, or almost any other modern translation are generally more accurate and readable.