point 8 is a good one. but the thing is, although you could summarize the findings to say why it's the case, science still points to very specific scientific studies and evidence that would lead to credible scientific theories. and this could be a time consuming under taking, that this debate duration clearly would not be enough time allotted to go over the scientific evidence to prove this. And a lot of it is so complicated, that it takes a while to digest, or worse requires a greater mind to fully understand it fully, that most people usually just takes people like Einstein at their word, seeing as other scientist vouch for their findings. Galileo felt he had to test these theories for himself to know the truth, and that is a good thing. But with the harder questions being looked at which has a lot more complexities to understand, and the ease of using google, people have become lazy to verify these facts themselves. so while we pro science people may not be as illogical as pro creationists; we still neglect to fully study the evidence either due to laziness or personal abilities of being able to verify ourselves :/
so even if point 8 is a strong defence of logical scientific rational to explain science theories based on the evidence, there are plenty of things creationists can do to counter. this is similar to what trolls do, ask you short questions which necessitate even longer answers, and use you as a google search finder to cross check all these facts/evidence to tire you out, to the point you are no longer bothered to do their homework for them, and thus proving their point that your argument is invalid. And whats even worse, they may not had even genuinely wanted to know why; as the only intent behind the questioning wasn't for enlightenment, but to only further their own pre-conceived notions and agenda by tiring yourself out of the debate.