Tassadar: I'm curious, why is it that evolution is singled out? Evolution has a scientific basis just as medicine, physics, astronomy, etc. does. So why not argue with your doctor the next time he gives you antibiotics for pneumonia?
I can agree micro-evolution has a scientific basis. General evolution theory, including mud-to-man abiogenesis fairytale, has a basis in trying to pass off a basically atheist belief, as "science".
I think it's easy to get into the false-comparison trap. Strictly speaking, logical notation teaches that each case must be weighed on it's own merit, and not on the merit of other cases. My own Spock-axiom I invented.
Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to think that if something is science then it is just as meritorious as another thing, "science". Obviously like Blitzking said, we can pretty much prove the effects of germ-theory, we can observably prove and deduce exotic air, we can demonstrate there is a real force we call, "gravity" by showing the implication that if we jump from a cliff we will fall to the ground. What we can't do is show macro-evolution, nor observe how it constructs an atp-synthase rotary motor with cogs and a stator.
Tassadar: You can’t just read a bunch of blog/forum posts and suddenly think you know more than the people that have trained in the field…and there is overwhelming consensus in those that have in favor of evolution
This implies a false dichotomy sometimes known as a limited choice fallacy, coupled with argumentum ad populum. You seem to assume the following; "you are either an uneducated person which is why you reject evolution, or you are an educated person that accepts evolution".
You say things on this site have surprised you, one thing that might surprise you is that there are thousands of scientists that are educated in science yet they are Darwin-dissenters. Not all of them are creationist of course, but lots of respectable, educated people, reject evolution. What is also clear is that they don't reject germs, gravity or oxygen, meaning there must be a difference.
Moreover, that there is an "overwhelming consensus" is not only the fallacy of an appeal to popularity, but also I would argue that it is in fact expected and inevitable that most scientists would accept evolution.
When you think about it properly, every person studying science is told the, "only scientific" explanation is evolution, so why would we expect most scientists to reject it? To give an analogy, imagine if you were in a room with many friends, and a very, very popular friend called Bob, whom everyone liked, said he had the keys, or so it is rumoured. So you don't know this so you ask John; "who has the keys?" and he says; "Bob has them". Then you tell your friend, then he tells your friend. If you take a poll after an hour, 90% of people will tell you Bob has the keys.
Question; did they study the matter?
That's why it is IRONIC that you come here to tell us we are ignorant. Most scientists don't study evolution in detail as that isn't their field, but rather they accept it because they have faith in science, which is what they love and why they are studying it. They accept it as argumentum ad verecundiam, meaning they appeal to "science" as an authority, for their argument as to why evolution is factual.
Ironically, people who come to reject evolution are usually more studious in it.
Tassadar: Or ask a geotechnical engineer to explain why your house is stable. Why are you taking them at their word but refuse to believe evolutionary biologists?
This is the interesting question isn't it. I would say it is because God has not stated that houses are not stable and geotechnical engineering is wrong.
Evolution as a theory, makes implications that our God does not exist and that He has lied when He said He made mankind in His image.
In other words, evolution isn't strictly science, it makes claims that pertain to "truth", therefore if an implication of evolution theory is that God is wrong, then obviously evolution isn't only about science.
Now if you can show me with your bachelors, the evidence that shows a turtle's interior scapular girdle evolved from a leg with an exterior scapular girdle, and show the conspicuously absent transitionals proving it happened that way, then I would be impressed.
If you can show how pterosaurs evolved, by showing me their progenitors, and how they made use of an elongated finger and pteroid bone, while they evolved flight, then please do so. If you can show me how sea-slugs made use of sea-anemone darts by eating them without being able to digest them because of the intelligently designed contingency plans were not yet in place, I would be impressed.
If you can show me the transitionals that led to apes, I would be impressed.
So when I ask a geotechnical engineer for proof, or the doctor for evidence the medicine he gave me works, these things can be shown to be demonstrably true.
HINT: If you are going to come on to a board assuming the Christian creationists are retarded, then obviously you're going to have to deal with the response, when the proverbial hits the fan. So if you can adjust your attitude-problem, of immediately committing a sweeping generalisation by assuming we are all simply uneducated nit-wits, pertaining to evolution theory, then we might get along, because right now I'm, "LAUGHING at your superior bachelors-intellect" - Captain Kirk - The Wrath Of Khan.
(welcome to the forum.)