[Carling]

Could it be that it takes longer than 200 years to produce a new species? We're talking life on a pretty grand scale here, unless we want to claim that the word was created about 6,000 to 9,000 years ago, or whatever Bishop Usher claimed.

A) Could it be? Yes. That still doesn't change the fact that species to new species evolution has ever been witnessed by a single scientist.

B) There are fruit flies that have a life cycle of 8 hours. The time frame is relevant, but it is also worth noting that in the 100-some years these flies have been used by scientists, not one has ever seen a fruit fly give birth to a completely different species of fruit fly or, say, a monkey.

I'm not saying that evolution isn't a possibility. What I am saying is that it is odd that scientists are willing to put their own "faith" into accepting evolution as fact when they know they can't replicate this theory in the lab. It's one of those irony-thingies, because "faith" for Creationism is dismissed out of hand with exactly the same scientific proof as the creation of new species by evolution.

[Lurking Libertarian]

the fact that species to new species evolution has ever been witnessed by a single scientist.

Never? Look here, or here.

[WildTurkey]

What I am saying is that it is odd that scientists are willing to put their own "faith" into accepting evolution as fact when they know they can't replicate this theory in the lab.

Scientists do not say evolution is fact. It is theory. A theory consistent with observed facts. If observed facts conflict with the theory, it is modified as needed to match observed facts. If it is replicated in a lab, then it will go from being a theory to being fact.