Svigil, I appreciate your sense of humour. Thanks. Those "cool words" are not just words. Feel free to ask me what any technical word means and I will give a full explanation. I am not blowing smoke up your bum, Sir, I promise if I say a word, I will understand it's full meaning. (I hope you can be bothered to read all this, I think you will find it interesting)
Svigil: You give a list of strong knowns, such as gravity. The trouble with this is, it's not so strong. We have little idea of what gravity is. We now think it comes from the Higgs field. But, the theory on this is far from perfect. And, we had to unload a ton of baggage to get there. We had to unload Aristotle's principles of motion. That is not an easy thing to do when you have the church wanting to burn you a live if you deny it's position on the subject.
You list germ theory. We had to unload this idea that demons cause sickness.
It's been a tough road getting to where we are. And germ theory is not as strong as you might think. For one thing, it depends upon a sub theory that the makers of this web site think is a fairy tale, evolution. So no, current germ theory would be contested by you guys!
I would say this is a misunderstanding of why I would regard these cases as logically strong cases. Allow me to explain.
You see, there is a force of gravity, but if you want, you can say that force is not fully understood, or doesn't have the right name, but it doesn't matter if we don't know the right name, or the full causes behind the force, the force is demonstrable 100% inductively, and 100% deductively and 100% mathematically.
That force, whether we call it gravity, or bagel-dust, is a present, demonstrable force, in the same way I can demonstrate to you that Mount Everest exists.
For example, to prove centripetal force you can test it every time. Same with linear momentum, which is usually referred to by it's pseudo-name, centrifugal force. There is no centrifugal force, when you go around a corner at high speed, you are thrown outwards not by a force but by linear momentum, because centripetal force is not enough to hold you in place fully, so angular-momentum is betrayed.
This is the type of thing I am talking about with, 'strong science'. I mean that things, whatever they are, forces, exotic-air, germs, Mount Everest, can be shown to be there. But they can't demonstrate even a bacteria, to 'macro-evolve'.
Now with evolution, the problem is that there is no such repeatably demonstrable evidence only tenuous conjectural hypothetics. A variety of turtles for example, is well within an understanding of baramins. But a true-transitional, would beancestors that 'LED' to what we now have, (turtles). I discussed this equivocation with the term, 'transitional' in my blogs. When I used the term, I mean an intermediate-organism, between environments. But evolutionists tend to qualify everything that exists as, 'transitional', which is a tautological definition.
All of the evidence of evolution is only evidence for micro-evolution, or adaptation.
I know I can't convince you, but the problem is if you have a claim of molecules-to-man, then the problem is, logically, the burden-of-proof is very high. This is because of a logical axiom that goes like this:
The greater the claim is, the greater the evidence must be.
Why is this? Let us test the axiom. Let's say I make a claim I can run fast. Sure, so then to run-fast by demonstration will be incontrovertible evidence. (we shall avoid pedantic semantics about 'proof' for now). But what if I made a claim I was superman? If I now ran fast, 20mph, would that evidence be sufficient?
Now I don't know what you have been TOLD about creationists, but there is a LOT of evolutionary-science that we accept as true because we have no choice, proving we are not lunatics. One of those elements we accept as true, is that animals can change, we just don't believe that animals changing can equate into animals changing into other animals.
LOGICALLY, good evidence for animals changing into other animals, is NOT to show animals changing, just like running fast is not good evidence that I am superman. I hope you can appreciate that, as you clearly are a smart guy. To further highlight the point, our claim is very small compared to the molecules-to-man claim, we are in fact arguing, not that molecules eventually can become men, but that men become men, birds become birds, fish become fish.
Think for a moment, what would be good evidence to prove a small claim that men become men? Like with the running-example, why a demonstration of course. We can show humans reproduce humans to evidence our claim, but a much greater claim would be to say that molecules can become men. I hope you can see the logical difference. I imagine you can, it is unavoidably true.
So then, baring this in mind, is it reasonable to accept evidence of turtle-ancestors, as ancestors that show how turtles became turtles by evolution? I propose it is not unreasonable. I propose we would expect to find such ancestors in rich fossiliferous rocks. To then SPECULATE as to why they are not there, is understandable, but it is weak science. Strong science would be to show the transitions that led to turtles, and how evolutionary exaptation was sufficent for this to happen. Example: a claw into a fin.
I appreciate your example of Sinai. That's an example actually of an argument from ignorance, because Saint Catherines was chosen as Sinai as a popular belief that it was Sinai. Sinai is actually Jebel El Lawz in Saudi Arabia. So I think that's an example, not of a conspicuous absence of the exodus, but an example of arguing from ignorance. You see, the case for Jebel El Lawz being Sinai, matches with the biblical descriptions in the book of Exodus. For example, it says the wilderness, "shut them in", it also says they went down into "the depths" of the Red Sea, in other scriptures.
The popular fiction, that Sinai was in the Sinai desert, was only ever based on tradition. The beach at Nuweyba, Nuweba Chiyyah, (I can't spell it right) means intepreted from original maps, read, "Moses crossing" if I remember correctly. They also found numerous circumstantial evidence for Sinai. Jebel El Lawz is burnt black on the top of the mountain, but the stones aren't burnt when split open, you can also see they are only burnt on the top of the stones. The mountain is most peculiar, the burnt-black peak ends in a neat line. Exodus says that God descended on the mountain with fire. You can see this on youtube videos. They also found a huge rock split from top to bottom, showing ancient water-erosion, and an ancient lake-bed. The "rock at Horeb". We also find many other interesting similarities with the exodus narrative, such as on one youtube video, the present of certain plants that were mentioned in the bible, still living in those locations, and flocks of quail that go to those areas, and lots of interesting evidence such as pillars of stone around the mountain, and an ancient altar. Go to youtube some time and google, "The Exodus Revealed". The case is only circumstantial, but it is a much better case that Saint Catherines, that's for sure.