Rebuttal To Creationists - "Since We Can't Directly Observe Evolution..."

And?I don't remember arguing as a creationist that it's important that we can't observe macro evolution now, unless I am speaking in terms of the fact that there is no reason we shouldn't see it at "inbetween" stages in extant forms like we should in the fossil record in extinct forms.Evolution theory's theoretics would mean that we couldn't observe something that allegedly evolved THEN, right NOW. So we couldn't observe a bat evolving because it's an alleged past event.But I do think logical reasoning PROVES that there are certain predictions based on the past observations whereby there would be no reason for those "inbetweens" to NOT be evolving now.If convergence is something that happens all the time as evolutionists argue, why aren't there inbetweens for arms, legs, organs, eyes, wings or fins presently "on their way" to becoming things that allegedly gained those things by evolution in the past?So this is a conspicuous absence of macro evolution. Not only if I look in the fossil record will I find no direct evidence of bat evolution or the evolution of the insect wing I will also not find any true intermediates in the living record either. Rationally speaking that gives me all the facts I need to not entertain macro evolution because of the axiom, "the greater a claim is the greater the evidence must be."So then comparing some adapting bacteria to the size of Darwin's claims hardly fits that axiom does it? Unless you think in order to prove you are superman all you need to do is show you own a superman costume. LOLConclusion; put simply, the insignificant changes evolutionist argue for macro evolution being supported by micro, not matter how much they PLAY UP the examples, just don't show any evidence of macro-scale change.