Here's what I see: you refuse to admit your 'a priori' beliefs.
"I'm not even sure you understand the question. And all this baloney about "a priori" beliefs is just that, baloney."
I'm not even sure you understand the issue. And calling your 'a priori' beliefs "baloney" proves that you don't understand the issue.
"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."
Remember, when you demonize people you move from argument to ad hominem. You use the term 'science', but refuse to admit that your understanding of the term is based on your 'a priori' beliefs.
"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."
You use emotion and rhetoric to protect your beliefs by invoking non-existent conspiracies and claiming some kind of victim status.
"But I'll give you another chance, because I'm a patient guy. Go ahead, try again:"
But I'll give you another chance, because I'm a great guy too.
"You say "micro-evolution" is acceptable to anti-evolutionists, but "macro-evolution" is not."
Where did I say that?
"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?"
Again, in asking this question you inherently assume that macro-evolution exists 'a priori' when it does not. As I pointed out to you in post 111, it's like me asking you to define exactly which biological system could not have been intelligently-designed (without committing to the fallacy of appeal to perfection, btw). Go ahead, try it. You won't be doing anything you haven't asked of me. It just puts me in control of defining reality as you are trying to be.
Jeez you guys are dense.
Of course I can't speak for anyone else, but you are right about me -- I'm as dumb as they come. And you are obviously a genius, which I said in the beginning, but you keep trying to prove me wrong!
Listen carefully -- I have here a 13 page article on macro-evolution, written from a scientific perspective and defending the idea against anti-evolutionists. This long article can be summarized in just a few words:
Macro-evolution is nothing more than the sum of micro-evolutionary processes over long periods of time. That's it.
So which part of that, exactly, do you object to? In other words, where, in your mind, does micro-evolution stop and macro-evolution begin?
Finally, I note this gem:
"it's like me asking you to define exactly which biological system could not have been intelligently-designed."
Just so we're clear about this, like most Christians, including Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and "mainline" Protestants, I believe in something called "Theistic Evolution," meaning God created everything -- scientific and non-scientific, micro and macro, short-term and long-term, whatever. Whether He did it all in six days or six billion years is more-or-less irrelevant, except that science tells us the evidence points towards older dates. And that's fine with me.
So my direct & clear answer to your question is: imho, ALL biological systems were "intelligently designed" by God through processes that science describes with the word "evolution."
What's your problem with that?