Replies

"Macro-evolution may not exist because it isn't observed. You simply assume that it exists in your mind and force all evidence through the interpretation of that mental filter. It's completely a mental construct. That's what you refuse to admit. "

Dan, Dan, I said I thought you were a smart guy, and now you're determined to prove me wrong! What am I going to do with you?

Here you've completely twisted your argument around backwards, claiming now that I'm the one defending macro-evolution and you are the one denying it!

Such nonsense. Remember, remember, we were talking about evolution being a walk, step by step across the country. Each step you could call "micro-evolution," and the journey from one coast to the other you might call "macro-evolution."

But you insisted that's a false metaphor. You said the true analogy would be trying to jump up to the moon -- macro-evolution. The process of jumping can never get you to the moon, you said.

So I asked you to define precisely which step is it, in our walk across country, which you think constitutes "jumping for the moon." In other words, where is it that "micro-" becomes "macro-" evolution?

So I ask again, focus on the question. See if you can give it a straightforward answer.

"Here you've completely twisted your argument around backwards, claiming now that I'm the one defending macro-evolution and you are the one denying it!"

That macro-evolution does not exist has been the point all along.

"Such nonsense. Remember, remember, we were talking about evolution being a walk, step by step across the country. Each step you could call "micro-evolution," and the journey from one coast to the other you might call "macro-evolution.""

No. You were misusing metaphor in an attempt to support something that does not exist.

"But you insisted that's a false metaphor. You said the true analogy would be trying to jump up to the moon -- macro-evolution. The process of jumping can never get you to the moon, you said."

Go ahead and work on jumping to the moon and get back to me when you succeed.

"So I asked you to define precisely which step is it, in our walk across country, which you think constitutes "jumping for the moon." In other words, where is it that "micro-" becomes "macro-" evolution?"

Again. You first assume that macro-evolution exists and then ask me to describe where something that does not exists begins to exist. It's irrational to insist that your belief be treated as reality after your error has been pointed out to you.

"So I ask again, focus on the question. See if you can give it a straightforward answer."

So I point out again, focus on your 'a priori' beliefs. See if you can understand the difference between reality and belief.