You're working your way there, but you're still not showing that ability to take off your creationist hat and put on the evolutionist hat. I think it was jennyp who speculated that probably any of the usual E-side suspects could log on with a new name and convincingly portray a creationist. She doubted that any of the then-usual C-side players could do the mirror-image thing, pretend to be an evolutionist. (We might have to make an exception these days for AndrewC, data lawyer extraordinaire.)
Here's the problem for your oversimplification and a key to your answer. Evolution says that mammals arose from reptiles. Why, some of the dinos even appear to be growing warm-bloodedness to support their increasing levels of physical activity! (We can tell from microscopic analysis of the blood channels in their bones.)
And yet no one reasonably versed in the evolutionary story would happily accept the possibility of mammaries on Mrs. T-rex.
That ability apparently comes from the practiced art of misrepresentation.
Of course. If evolution is true then an event forbidden by evolution could not occur. But whether macro-evolution occurs or not is what we are considering. If there were T-Rex eggs, I would pretty much figure on no mammaries regardless of evolutionary theory.
Circular reasoning. Using evolution to prove its own claims. You can only prove evolution with facts - which you have already admitted you do not have any of in this matter.