Evolution? How?

Basically, this is a poker game in which everyone is obliged to not simply to put up or shut, but show their own cards when they call someone else's hand.

That silliness is predicated upon an assumption that the "if i can imagine it, it may be so" method of the past is comparable to the rigorous standards of scientific method, which has only been in use for less than two centuries. Further, it inferentially suggests that those who use and revise a theory of evolution in pursuit of knowledge about the origin and development of life forms are "clinging" to a belief set, as opposed to simply using an intellectual tool--it is equivalent to the silly contention of creationists who assert that there are evolutionists with an agenda to forward an equivalent but different belief set. Finally, this set of what i take to be rhetorical questions on your part: "Do we not believe the future might also expose our own failings? Why then do we cling so tightly to them? And why do we disparage those who cling with equal tenacity to the God who has been the same for an eternal past and will remain for an eternal future?"--assumes that using a theory of evolution as an investigative intellectual tool could constitute a failing, because the future may well demonstrate that it is false. Theories are subject to falsification as a part of the method by which they are validated, revised or rejected out of hand. That statement is also predicated upon an assumption that a deity actually does exist, and has a greater validity as something to which "to cling" because of its eternal nature. That is nowhere established, and constitutes a belief based upon faith. A theory of evolution is not a belief set, it is subject to falsification, replication and revision, and acts a work in progress with which to manage and understand the data about orgins and the development of life forms--nothing more . . . and nothing less.

BTW, anyone heard that Harvard is going to promote a resaearch to study and replicate the origin of life? CNN Webpage

Where has macro-evolution ever been replicated and observed rather than inferred?

Again, education is not for developing the faculty of argument, criticism, or exhibiting your mastery over language or logic.

That study is the best which teaches you to conquer this cycle of birth and death, which gives you the mental equipoise that is not affected by the prospect of death, or the blessings or blows of fate.

real life wrote:

Where has macro-evolution ever been replicated and observed rather than inferred?

Where has creation ever been replicated and observed, full stop?

Where has macro-evolution ever been replicated and observed rather than inferred?

Quote:

Where has macro-evolution ever been replicated and observed rather than inferred?

The most famous example:
The Nile Cichlid fish in Lake Turkana. Here are an isolated species of fish that , by tectonics have been isolated about 40K years ago.The fish have evolved to the new genus level while still displaying basically the same genomes.
There are other examples , but presenting just one defines the process and the outcome.

Creationist thought needs to move on to other levels where there still may be some difficulties, otherwise they will be rendered obsolete. In fact, the very soul of "God directed origins" is held by the Intelligent Designers and, as far as most of the more skilled ones (like Mike Behe), they agree that the methods of evolution and the time frames we deal in are correct. They accept evolution.(I hope thats not a news flash). SO standard Crewationist thought is kind of floating off on its own, with not much support any longer.