No, and that's a lie plain and simple. Creationists did not establish the pseudo-scientific lingo that Darwinist/evos use in their explanations. Macro-evolution is an evolutionist construct - not creationinst. You guys have just been so busy trying to blur the lines between micro and macro for so long that you're believing your own lies now apparently. People rejected the leap between the two and because you knew that was the case and wanted to gain ground, you have tried to hack macro away in order to hide the problem of speciation as it was originally proferred. Something new and different arising from something prior. Instead of proving your case (which you can't), you change your story to avoid the requirement of proof.. as though it lets you off the hook. It doesn't. You're losing ground and have largely lost the debate.
You seem to have missed the following sentence in my post.:
Although scientists started using the terms and some still use them the difference is of degree only, not of type as you would have.
Why would you do that?
Scientists did indeed coin the terms, however creationists have changed the terms to not mean a difference in degree but a difference in type. This difference in type when used by a creationist to attack evolution should be defined as a strawman argument.
"You guys have just been so busy trying to blur the lines between micro and macro for so long that you're believing your own lies now apparently.
When originally coined, and when in use by scientists today the difference between micro (intraspecies evolution) and macro (extra species evolution) is one of degree. Micro taken to extremes results in macro. This is not a change in meaning.
People rejected the leap between the two and because you knew that was the case and wanted to gain ground, you have tried to hack macro away in order to hide the problem of speciation as it was originally proferred.
Many do not use the terms macro and micro not because of some desire to hide anything but because they lead to misunderstandings and say little about speciation.
"Something new and different arising from something prior.
If you are suggesting that something new arises from something else in one generation, that is a saltation event. The ToE does not claim that saltation events occur. Stop reading Hovind and start reading some real scientists.
Instead of proving your case (which you can't), you change your story to avoid the requirement of proof.. as though it lets you off the hook. It doesn't. You're losing ground and have largely lost the debate.
Talking about proof, where is your proof that the ToE is loosing ground in the sciences where it matters?