[MeshugeMikey]

As employed in discussion of evolution, the word Micro refers to changes within kinds..i.e species.

In that discussion of evolution, Macro refers to changes between different kinds..i.e species.

That being said one cannot add up changes within a given species and arrive at a sum of changes between species.

The timing of same....thats certainly up for discussion..debate as the language used to describe the seven days may or may not have been meant to describe our commonly accepted 24 hour days. There is all manner of allegorical and symbolic language throughout the Bible. Determining whether the "days" of creation are to be given a "wooden" literal interpretation or otherwise is beyond my pay grade.

In cases of allegory and symbology...the truth of that which is being communicated is not dependant on a literal interpretation

Satan was described as a Serpent....in Genisis. That referred to his slippery nature..not his actual literal condition ie being a flesh and blood snake. This is not a problem as it was intended to communicate spirit rather than a literal ontololigcal fact. those days mentioned in Genesis I would suggest are not our 24 hour days anymore that satan was an actual physical serpent. I suspect that days of the Creation were employed to illustrate the Orderly Progression of the Creation, presenting it in a manner that Man could readily understand. Thanks.

[BroJoeK]

MeshugeMikey: "As employed in discussion of evolution, the word Micro refers to changes within kinds..i.e species.
In that discussion of evolution, Macro refers to changes between different kinds..i.e species."

Sorry, but that is just anti-science propaganda -- scientifically there are no "kinds", and there is no separate process for "changes within" versus "changes between different" categories.
It's all just evolution.

Your word "kinds" is strictly a theological concept, not science.
Instead, science classifies all life into eight major and dozens of lesser categories: domain, kingdom, phylum, class, family, order, genus, species... then sub-species, breed/variety, form, race/ethnicity/nation...
Precise definitions of what, exactly, makes for separate classifications have been revised to account for results of detailed DNA analyses.
These have "upgraded" some populations to separate higher categories, while "downgrading" others to just sub-groups of a lesser classification.

One key dividing line between separate sub-species, species & genera, for example, is the ability & enthusiasm of various populations to interbreed.
But remember, this "line" is no line at all -- it's a continuum along which some groups interbreed eagerly, while others cannot even be forced to interbreed.

Point is: long-term DNA changes within separated populations make them increasingly unwilling or unable to interbreed with other populations.
The extent of these DNA changes is strictly a function of time and location, having nothing to do with the theological idea of "kinds".

MeshugeMikey: "That being said one cannot add up changes within a given species and arrive at a sum of changes between species."

Sorry, but your sentence is utterly without scientific meaning.
Extensive DNA analyses show that there are calculable rates of mutations in separated populations.
In the short term, these changes may have no practical effects -- i.e., human "races" still avidly interbreed -- but over longer terms interbreeding becomes increasingly difficult to impossible.
A good example would be African & Asian elephants.

Bottom line: nothing in science has anything to do with the theological concept of "kinds", and any discussion of "kinds" is necessarily unscientific.
The absence of "kinds" makes the creationists concept of "micro" versus "macro" evolution scientifically invalid.