There are gaps. Well known ones.
On Jan 2, 2014 4:13 PM, "GMoney" wrote:
>
> If evolution is not a proven fact to you, then facts cannot be proven to
> you.
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Timothy Heald >wrote:
>
> >
> > Or that you don't.
> >
> > Simply put it's not a proven fact.
> > O
I don't disagree with anything you wrote.
The questions for me are more about the middle species and missing link.
On Jan 2, 2014 4:01 PM, "Judah McAuley" wrote:
>
> Which parts of evolution do you consider not proven facts? One of the big
> problems with the word "evolution" is that many peop
It appears that several of the "laws" we take for granted don't seem to
hold true at the subatomic level. Even, perhaps, time itself.
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> There are many ways you explain that observation, Newton's theory on
> gravitational attraction is but
