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.
GourmetDad:"So I point out again, focus on your 'a priori' beliefs. See if you can understand the difference between reality and belief. "
Here's what I see: you refuse to answer the question. I'm not even sure you understand the question. And all this baloney about "a priori" beliefs is just that, baloney.
Remember, you anti-evolutionists are the ones who use the term "macro-evolution" as a weapon against science. Science cares not a whit for it -- evolution is evolution, short term = micro, long term = macro, and that's all.
But you anti-evolutionists have grabbed onto the word "macro-evolution" and twisted it into a flog against science, just as if you had found something important. You didn't.
But I'll give you another chance, because I'm a patient guy. Go ahead, try again:
You say "micro-evolution" is acceptable to anti-evolutionists, but "macro-evolution" is not. So, can you define for us precisely where is the line that separates acceptable micro- from unacceptable macro-evolution? Can you give us an example?