[ I am posting this on blog aswell ]

Let me try. Because you like Wikipedia, so will I. But i'll be cropping your arguments if they are too long, I will still answer the whole, original "argument". Please realise, though, that this is not answered by a priest nor scholar, but a believing student that shares his point of view on "common sense".
i'll also accent words by _underscoring_ not CAPSING because it focuses way nicer.

Dear erisblastar

"1. My first reason for losing belief was that I learned evolution is true. (...)"

If your argument is based on dissing with a "Christianity cannot immediately explain away" concept, it's not an argument. Does a discussion require a clock? I find this more of a neutral statement. As of the evolution - it's just a theory that may or may not be true. How come other animals didn't evolve to create hivemind or other exotic form of civilisation?

"2. On that note, one of the historical problems of the Bible is that there is absolutely no evidence for any Adam or Garden of Eden. In fact, there is much evidence against it, most of it from the findings that support evolution."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_of_Eden#Proposed_locatio...
While we are talking about the Garden - there was no apple, but a "fruit" due to error with translations in ancient times of past.

Adam:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam#Etymology
same goes for Eve:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eve#Etymology
let's also accept:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve#Scientific_communi...
I know also of a translation in my language,
that instead of "Adam and Eve" uses the "the Man" and "That-of-the-Man".

While I don't prove that Garden existed, it may be treated like a story.

"3. Another historical problem with the Bible is that it is abundantly clear to any student of geography that there has never been a global flood. There cannot have been. There’s no evidence from the rocks. Besides, there isn’t enough water on the planet."

That's a good one :)
It is true - there is not enough _fluid_ water on the planet. Lets grab the glacers then!
also - there _is_ evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth#Claims_of_historicit...
I see here at least 5 good hypotheses.

"4. Further, not even Abraham is a historical character. He is a literary invention, as even Wikipedia shows."

Well, if wikipedia says so. But even Wikipedia is _unsure_ wherever he did or did not exist.

"5. Continuing the historical problems, Moses is another character from the Bible who never existed. There was no wandering through the desert for 40 years, and no plagues of Egypt, and no Commandments from Mount Sanai. I’m not a historian and this is meant to be brief, so I’m not presenting the evidence for these last few assertions, but these Biblical figures being fictional is almost as commonly accepted among historians as evolution is among biologists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Historicity

I have to comment on your "haste". If you want me to take this argument seriously, please: present evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagues_of_Egypt#Historicity

"6. On a different hand, there are several moral problems with Christianity and/or the Bible. In particular, the Bible forbids neither slavery nor rape. Indeed, it allows the beating of slaves as long as they don’t die for at least a day or two (Exodus 21:20-21). In the case of rape, the woman can be put to death for adultery if she doesn’t scream loud enough (Deuteronomy 22:23-24) or be forced to marry her rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). Clearly, these are NOT moral positions! (If you disagree, please seek help.)"

So. I disagree. Grab Catechism of the Catholic Church if you're looking for law regarding men.
Also I have _never_ seen, heard etc of using Deuteronomy in our "time".

Is this a problem with Christianity? No.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+22&v...
Bible doesn't forbid slavery and rape?
I. It's the Old Testament.
II. From what I know slavery isn't forbidden because it's common (do you realise I'm talking about the times author wrote the Deutheronomy?).
III. Because rape is not forbidden it _does NOT_ mean it's allowed.
(sorry for using KJV)

"7. Further, many sects of Christianity still forbid all forms of homosexuality, masturbation, and extramarital sex. While we should certainly not approve of cheating, there is no reason to forbid other consenting acts of sex. (...)"

O. Sects? Okay...
I. How does this prove || disprove God?
II. Because homosexuality is unnatural event. We (so do I) believe that God created "Adam and Eve". That's how babies are not born.
III. Wet dreams? Show me quote of the Bible concerning this.
IIII. Love is not only about senseless and brainless pleasure.
V. You say before God, that you love her/him (your spouse) and next few years you say: "well, God. I don't love her but I love another one. Sorry but I made a mistake". There may be good reasons for divorce, that's why it's not forbidden, but _strongly_ and often denied (more of a last resort).

"8. Another moral problem with Christianity, or at least many sects of it, is that it forbids abortion and contraception. There is no moral argument for forbidding contraception. It does not end a life; it prevents one from beginning. (...)"

My, you are totally wrong and you even don't know it.

I. _If_ "There is no moral argument for forbidding contraception. It does not end a life;" Well done, you just used your own argument to prove, that if purpose of _abortion is to end life_ (KILLS) it is morally "wrong / bad / evil".
II. Contraception pills? You mean those hormones and chemicals women take, and then the fertilized egg can't merge(?) with womb? It's the _same_ as abortion, but here the child doesn't have the body which could defend it from killing her.

The problem with abortion is not due to killing - we all should know that's bad.
The problem lies in rape.

"However, if it is entirely illegal, it leads to women being thrown in jail for miscarriages."
Please - evidence. I need to use arguments, so i need sources."

"To me, this alone is enough to convince that abortion needs to be legal for at least the first trimester."
This is becoming absurd. Hey, lets kill someone if we "just don't have the time to be a parent".
Absurd: Yes, it's legal to kill during first trimester, but you shan't kill a second after.
Who gave you right to decide of life and death?