It seems like each step of the conversation uncovers more.
- Mainstream scholars have published thousands of books and countless more peer-reviewed articles. I’ve created a web page/self-published a book. Therefore the burden of proof is on you to disprove my views.
- If you’ve read Ken Ham/Robert Price/William Dembski and are not persuaded, you need to read Henry Morris/Earl Doherty/Michael Behe. How can you reject young-earth creationism/mythicism/intelligent design if you haven’t even read all its proponents?
- Biological evolution is not proven to the same degree of certainty as equations in physics/historical conclusions are less certain than ones in the natural sciences, therefore I don’t actually have to address your evidence and arguments.
And of course there’s the prooftexting. Anyone want to point out still others?