Why do creationists largely use only straw-man arguments?

[Franzl]

He's talking about creationists misrepresenting the opinion of people that believe in evolution.

For example, I hear "I can't believe that humans evolved from apes" all the time from creationists, despite the fact that that claim isn't made by evolutionists.

[Franzl]

That's like arresting me now and accusing me of murdering somebody who I didn't even know, and have no way to prove didn't happen.

Does that make it just as likely that I'm guilty as innocent?

[Franzl]

You cannot not say that because you can't prove the supernatural is isn't real, that it is equally valid to believing it is real. Because there is no evidence for it, rational thinkers will choose not to believe it.

That's like arresting me now and accusing me of murdering somebody who I didn't even know, and have no way to prove didn't happen.

Does that make it just as likely that I'm guilty as innocent?

Both sides can't prove of disprove Heaven or Hell. So why are we even talking about it?

Just like I can't prove I didn't kill anybody yesterday

Does that mean the odds are 50-50 that I did?

[Franzl]

When there is no evidence for or against a proposition, its reality and falsehood are equally probable. Only intuition is then left to fall back on.

So is there any evidence that the Spaghetti monster doesn't exist?

[Franzl]

None that I am aware of. Nor is there a shred of evidence that my senses and memory are accurate. At root, we are all intuitionists—but only some of us are willing to admit it.

So the "reality and falsehood" of the Spaghetti Monster are "equally probably", in your opinion?