Why are we so bad at this?

don't worry Percy, I'll never accuse you of that.I never noticed this thread of yours before. If you were more logical you might notice this opening post starts with a conclusion. (circular).The post is very similar to a video that came up on utube saying, "why do Christians hate so much".The hate is presumed in that video, and any discussion about the "hate" part would be deemed a foregone conclusion.In the same way you have an arrogance which shows in this post in that you can't even SEE the possibility that macro evolution might be specifically rejected because it is genuinely deemed to be false by intelligent, informed people. (many of whom exist even if you can't bear to tell yourself they do. Off hand I can think of a few such as Stephen Meyer, Hugh Ross, Jonathan Sarfati. Even the co-inventor of the gene gun, Sanford.)You broaden it to "science" being mistrusted, but evolution is a specific thing within science.This way you can pretend a rejection of evolution is, "science denial", by conflating the two.Perhaps that is subconscious, but it is not, "logical".There is also the fallacy of composition to consider.If I reject evolution generally, what does that actually mean in terms of the facts of the science within it? If I reject that a plane as a whole cannot fly as an argument, will that mean I believe the individual parts of a plane CAN fly?No. I won't.I accept many things you and those like you informed me about in the noughts. Natural selection, gene flow, allele frequencies, forms of speciation, nested patterns, sexual selection, etc....etc.....This axiom sums it up for me personally."Yes, you are partially right, animals clearly do evolve and to a significant extent.....but there is no reason or science that would make me believe they evolve over time into completely different animals."Now whether you like it or not, THAT is the reason I don't accept it. Not the reasons you gave.That you don't believe me? Well, I am sorry if you believe true things can only be true if they fit with your subjective concepts.CONCLUSION; your O.P lives to create the facade/false dichotomy of, "science and true and you accept it, or you reject it for reasons that are only erroneous".A false disjunction. (binary thinking)You concentrate too much on general groupings. Life is more nuanced than that.Disclaimer; I am not saying you are unintelligent, it isn't personal. I just think this is a typically self-serving type of topic that makes you look like the educators and us look like the students."WRONGO!" - The Grinch.

Also, my intention is not to DISRESPECT evolution theory.For me personally, it is a challenge to me because it is a compelling case from indirect evidence.I won't go into the reasons I believe evolution is false since it isn't my intention to bash on evolution and evolutionists.There's a lot of things I respect about evolution.- Homology. What an elegant explanation of the pentadactyl pattern it would be to suppose a common ancestor.OF COURSE I understand how a common, shared element in the past from an initial group can then explain a splitting of groups.In fact that reasoning is observed by me when it pertains to pyramids of similarity being found in far places of the world far apart from one another. Because once before they split up, they may have shared the knowledge of how to build them.- scientific investigation/attempts to explain things with methodological naturalism.This is a valiant effort and can be an honest one. Most scientists when I come across them, don't actually debate the issue all that much like with the vituperative anti-theists. They are honestly going about their work..That's fine, I have no problem with that. I only believe that their ultimate conclusion of macro is wrong but I don't reject their findings. Allele frequencies, mutations, heck even exaptation to a degree, have all been shown to exist. Adaptation exists.Why do you think I reject these things?It's not the science that is so much at fault for me Percy, it's the fantastic conclusion of it ALL being a result of evolution, that I reject.

Thanks for your time.For me that is part of the problem. There is also the issue of the burden-of-proof. There is an axiom I observe; phantasticus axioma; "The more fantastic a claim the more fantastic it's evidence must be".To claim even the monstrously different phenotypes can bridge a gap by creating useful stages is a CLAIM of evolution. The burden of proof is reasonably upon Darwin EVEN NOW to show that evolution can.There are strange phenotypes that had to have evolve and there is no escape they had to evolve from something radically different. Such as the pteroid bone in a pterosaur. The elongated finger. Presumably it evolved from a quadruped, right?I expect evidence of that but it would be unreasonable to demand evidence of it. It would not be unreasonable to look for all such evidences, and then say, "now I demand to see how evolution at least created some of it".So shall we look at some gaps in the fossil record, windows of time where X MUST have evolved?Empirical evidence would satisfy my intellect.I have already looked at those windows-of-time. CONCLUSION; It can't be as simple as, "lots of micro = macro". Micro doesn't have to deal with overhauls of phenotype and no micro-examples do.I won't get into defining kind, these days I believe the kind would differ according to what God wanted to achieve with the animal in question. The law of identity suffices. All the evidence shows that X is X. Even if I don't define kind, that won't change that all the evidence has only ever shown humans beget humans. Even not knowing where the barrier is won't mean that once we were apes because not knowing where a barrier is, doesn't mean there isn't one."I don't know where the solar system ends!"Adequate response; so what.

Just one last post. (sorry if I sounded harsh Percy, I have a strict style, and perhaps "arrogant" was a touch harsh).I don't mean to go back far into the horse and buggy days of EvC forum but it does seem to me that message 1 deals with the issue.I am not saying this to implicate you Percy, but I think the real problem was your cyber-genocide of most of the evolutionists that used to come here. (so to speak).It seemed such a decidedly odd thing to do. All my friends are there, and hey presto now they are gone. ANd what were they replaced with? Tangle for example?Did it ever occur to you that coming into a lion's den to basically get chewed up and spat out, just isn't all that appealing?At least the classic atheists conversed with me. Talked to me like I wasn't something on their shoe, etc.....But these days it seems the pejoratives and dysphemisms and epithets and vituperative vitriol is pretty much what the whole woke position is, including a lot of non-believers in that.It seems to be a post-truth, post-intellectual era, where calling me the dumbest prick on the planet is all that is needed in debate.Well............okay then. But is it really going to enamour creationists?Look at Faith and Buzsaw. Your style was to basically argue THEM. It was just an echo-chamber for their verbal slaughter.That doesn't speak of objective people. What it does show is ideology and prejudice. Are you self-aware enough to change?Most people aren't.It's probably much easier to just instead stereotype the creationists, right?

Zucadragon, I don't only reject macro evolution because of macro evolution, but because of the strength of the design argument; Forums - Evolution Fairytale ForumYou can find more at EFF forum; (above link)