I think I, "get" the tactics of evolutionists, which is similar to their tactics elswhere. They want to state their case and then have you refute it, without supporting their case.
We have now supported our case, I even patiently written out all of the formal logic, proving our case. If the evolutionists now want to actually support anything they've said by actually showing their logic, and showing the evidence, then they must do so. For them to expect me to give a hour-long explanation every time they RE-STATE the same predictable sophistry, is very dishonest in a debate.
Here's some things we all know, so it's best not for them to be stated again:
1. We know evolution would not say that animals, "must" change. This in no way affects the logic that says that if you claim molecules-to-man, showing "none-change" will not satisfy the logic, this is a mis-match, in regards to the molecules-to-man claim, as to prove or evidence molecules-to-man would be to show direct evidence of intermediate forms. Conjectural explanations of why the evidence is NOT there, is understandable as a theoretic, but is astonishingly logically WEAK.
2. We know the job of scientific theories. To explain things according to methodological naturalism. Logically this doesn't mean that the explanation you have is the correct one. Saying it's the "only one" or the "best one" is weak semantic sophistry, as we know it is the only one the evolutionary scientists will accept.
3. We know that monkeys can co-exist with humans, and that the list would not represent a monkay-argument, the list shows that there was certainly one lineage that has remained the same, logically. Whereas evolutionary lineages, are not proven, but an unchanged lineage proves deductively the lineage occurred. Evolutionary-lineages are only propositional, because we can't know a genuine link, we can only evidence a tenuous, speculative link.
4. We know that hitting the evolutionist on the head all day with a metaphorical frying pan, will not change their minds. They will continue to state the same things again and again and again as though merely stating it proves their case.
Yes, we understand your attitude - you accept what science has to offer, as all-knowing, truth. But science doesn't have that job, and for that reason you over-value the epithetical value the term, "science" has in your mind.
An epithet is an emotive word. If I were to say to you, "the bible indicates h*m*s*xuality is a sin", instead of discussing that issue, some people don't discuss or debate, instead, to "win" the debate the EASY WAY they will use an epithet, such as, "homophobe". When we hear that word, we immediately make psychological associations and non-sequiturs in our minds. Instantly and innocently we will think like this: "what? A homophobe? That's a person full of hate, oh my goodness, this guy must be a bigot,"
You see, the Christian might have ZERO hatred, but as soon as people reading the debate hear the word, because it has those associations in their mind, all debate is over, and it is a matter of forgetting the jury, forgetting the judge, and going to the execution.
In the same way, "science" is being used by evolutionists as an epithet. "Science works this way", "this is science's best explanation", "science tells us by theorizing"
If you think, "well, it's the science, it can't be wrong", then in your mind you make psychological associations with the term "science", you think the word means this: "true, proven, must be right, as most accept it, evidenced, accepted by qualified people".
This means you have TRICKED yourself. Just because something comes under the umbrella of science doesn't mean it is automatically true and correct. Think about it - many scientific theories are no longer even accepted, what is it that makes you think evolution will be eternally accepted? Chances are it will eventually fail because of all of the holes in it.