Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Clandestine
"an evolutionist doesn't need address a creationists arguments directly, they need only point out that they consider these arguments to be illogical..." you instantly lose much credibility, and just come off as being obstinate.
How so? If all someone is going is bringing illogical arguments in a specific way, then you point out the kind of faulty logic they're using to present their case, saving you time of disproving each case on it's own, to showing what type of argument they're using and why it can be disregarded.

Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Clandestine
Think about it...I could practically re-make this entire video, replace "creationist" with "evolutionist", and get the same response from creationists that this video is getting from evolutionists. That doesn't make it any more "logically infallible", quite the opposite actually, it makes it equally as unfeasible for all the same reasons.
Evolution doesn't get it's proof by disproving ID or creationism. Evolution's strength doesn't come from ID or creation's weakness, evolution's strength comes from it's own observations tests and conclusions.

What test can one possibly conduct to prove the existence of an intelligent designer?