My arguments point out the obvious that you simply deny.
To explain again, you cannot ask a question that assumes a logical fallacy 'a priori' and expect that any answer confirms or rejects your belief. Your question assumes fallacy is truth. That is a critical-thinking error.
"You are way too quick with insults."
Pointing out that your critical-thinking skills are lacking is an insult? How would you have me point out that obvious fact without 'insulting' you?
"You have nothing of value to offer."
What I offer is the essence of understanding that macroevolution is nothing more than an 'a priori' assumption of philosophical naturalism based on the fallacy of affirming the consequent. You simply lack the ability to comprehend it.
There you used that word again: "macroevolution," which you keep telling me doesn't exist, can't be defined, is nothing but "a priori assumption" based on falsely "affirming the consequent."
And I keep saying: what in the world are you talking about? To which you answer, in effect: see above. And you claim that's "responsive"?
But you CAN accept "micro-evolution," can't you -- because we can see it, and measure it, right? Indeed, micro-evolution is a "confirmed observation," which is the scientific definition of the word "FACT."
And we know for certain that micro-evolution has been going on for at least 100 years, because we have scientifically observed it for about that long.
Indeed, we have NO reason to believe that micro-evolution has not been going on since the beginning of life on earth, have we?
So, how long has life been micro-evolving on earth?
Well now, there's a big dispute about that, isn't there? Don't scientists tell us billions of years? While biblical literalists say, no, only 6,000 years, right?
So, who is correct? Well, biblical literalists tell us that scientists are all wrong, that scientific observations about decay rates of radioactive isotopes are just nonsense, and therefore, only the biblical account can be relied on... do I have that right so far?
Scientists, on the other hand, tell us there is no physical evidence -- whether it's methodological, or philosophical, or metaphysical or ontological naturalism they use -- no evidence to support a Young Earth date of 6,000 years. All the physical evidence points to much older dates, they say.
Now I've said this before -- the obvious surmise is that God could easily have created the earth in six days 6,000 years ago, and may well have done so. But just as obviously He left a lot of clues laying around to confuse modern day naturalistic scientists to the point where He's got almost all of them believing the earth is a very old place indeed.
And how do biblical literalists respond to the findings of those scientists? Well, as best I can tell, with a single word: LIAR.
Now, there's no way I'm going to believe that all those scientists are lying, or that biblical literalists have even a small shred of real scientific evidence to support their claims.
I am therefore left to conclude that the ones yelling so loudly "LIARS" may possibly have a little problem with truth-telling themselves.
You agree, no doubt?