Another example is ID/creationists expecting one modern species to evolve into another modern species.
Furthermore, their misconceptions about evolution have them expecting a member of one species to give birth to young of an entirely different genus or other higher taxon -- eg, dogs giving birth to kittens, "a snake laid an egg and a bird hatched out".
That's how they think that evolution works even though it is completely contrary to evolution. And I have yet to see any creationist even begin to try to explain why they expect that.
I also see a lot of creationist statements to the effect that they expect a new species to arise instantaneously when a member of the ancestral species (100% of that ancestral species) gives birth to a single member of the new species (100% of that new species). Of course, that is not at all how evolution works, but again no creationist will even begin to try to explain why they expect that.
Second, ID/creationists don't listen to the answers. I have presented the evidence to creationists over and over, but they seem to ignore it.
Of course not. Their immoral souls depend on them being right and you being dead wrong. They cannot allow themselves to listen to a word that you say.
For that same reason, they cannot allow themselves to explain what they expect, since that would draw them into a discussion which would require them to listen to you. Therefore, they must do everything they can to avoid having an actual discussion.
The sad truth is that creationists don't listen and refuse to discuss or support their claims because they have no clue what they are talking about. All they know is what their handlers tell them, which they memorize and repeat, but they understand nothing of the science that those claims are supposed to be based on. As a result, they are completely incapable of supporting or discussing those claims, so they have to resort to avoidance tactics (eg, changing the subject, slipping into troll mode, refusing to respond, running away).
For example, my research into Hovind's solar-mass-loss claim was started by an email I received in which a high school kid sought verification on a claim he was told by a fundamentalist summer camp counselor which stated that the sun loses half of its mass every year. That flagrantly false statement was obviously a corruption of a few simple facts: 1) that the sun loses mass, 4-5 million tonnes per second, through its fusion reaction, 2) that that fusion reaction takes place in the sun's core, and 3) that the sun's core contains half of the sun's mass. I originally assumed that this was a case of the Telephone Game Theorem (parlour game in which a message is whispered from person to person and then you compare the final version with the original and marvel at how much it had been corrupted in the transmission) and that the original claim's repeated retelling by creationists who didn't understand any of it had resulted in its corruption. But now I'm no longer certain that it wasn't created with its gross falsehoods. Either way, it is a prime demonstration of the consequences of creationist ignorance. BTW, the kid did listen and walked away knowing that he must verify any claims that he encounters, especially creationist claims.
I can't imagine where you are seeing such stuff. Creationists here come up with some odd ideas, but I don't think I've seen anything that wrong here.
I want to say that it happens all the time, but that would be hyperbolic. Still it happens extremely often with sickening regularity. I have seen them do it over and over again over the decades that I've been involved. That "a snake laid an egg and a bird hatched out" quote comes straight from a local YEC activist (who in a correspondence spanning two decades completely refused to present or discuss any young-earth claims). It seems like almost every time there's a video with rank-and-file creationists they end up including as "evidence against evolution" the fact that you never see dogs giving birth to cats or vice versa. And I have seen that same claim used over and over again in forums, and every time they refuse to support or even discuss it. We have even seen it used here, more recently by candle2 and by dredge -- so you haven't been paying attention.
So your objection that it doesn't happen feels very familiar. Whenever I bring up a creationist claim like, "Why are there still monkeys?", creationists will immediately howl in indignation and try to claim that I just made that up because no creationist would say such a thing. And yet I have observed that very claim occurring several times in the wild, albeit nowhere near as frequently as dogs not giving birth to cats. Even Answers in Genesis included "why are there still monkeys?" in their "Claims we wish creationists would stop using" articles. IOW, it happens.
Now certainly, we hear such ridiculous claims much more from the yahoo ranks of creationism than from the higher ranks, but those yahoos are getting it from somewhere, namely from what they're being taught by the higher ranks. Also, I've seen a highly intelligent creationist, far from a yahoo, try to avoid discussing young-earth claims before ending up by presenting Niagara Falls as proof of a young earth. So even the most intelligent creationist will revert to the stupidest false claims.
The biggest problem that I see is not just that creationists will use stupidly false claims, but then they do everything they can to avoid discussing and supporting their claims (eg, explaining the basis for their claim). dredge keeps changing the subject and ignoring the question (or slip yet again into troll mode) while candle2 just plain disappeared.