There are only two possibilities: you're either not familiar with the evidence, which is overwhelming and conclusive, or you willfully choose to ignore that evidence. The former explanation is more charitable than the latter, which implies dishonesty on your part. I don't like to think that people are dishonest, so I choose the former.
Is laughter part of the evolution theory process?
If not I have just advanced the species.
No actually what bothers you is that I am not agreeing with you.
Did not this start with me stating that you are a condescending little twerp?
You sir have not disappointed me.
Dishonesty? Not necessarily. There's another possibility you failed to consider.
Personally, I couldn't care less how much "overwhelming and conclusive evidence" you think you have to support macroevolution. It just tells me your evidence is somehow flawed. The simple fact that it cannot be reconciled with what the Bible clearly says is enough for me to say macroevolution is false.
That's not dishonesty. If you think otherwise, so be it.