I've heard people say it's the theory of evolution (TOE) which is what makes it so hard to argue against (because it can change), it's been a fact for over 100 years, etc. What is so dangerous about the double-edged word choice, being able to be one or the other at any given time? Evolution/adaptation/variation/speciation are indeed all facts, but only when used in the context of a dog producing another dog for example. It has been observed in nature, and in laboratories that you can produce more breeds within a species. That makes 'evolution' a fact. However there are certain arguments within evolution that keeps it a theory. 1 for ex.: Small, gradual changes, moderate jumps, and/or huge leaps. Now if evolution is an undeniable, proven fact why is there still argument over the rate? Because, the 'compelling evidence' can be interpreted in several ways. Scientists don't consider maybe it all happened at once 6,000 years ago, and when Christians do people scoff.
2007-11-16
07:11:39
·
30 answers
·
asked by
sir_richard_the_third333333333
2
in
Religion & Spirituality