[gore3000]

The changes that occur in species due to natural selection is called 'evolution'.

No, no, no. Evolution is about the descent of one species from a simpler, less complex species. In fact Darwin for a long time did not even use evolution to describe his theory he called a theory of descent. In fact, adaptation is in a way a contradiction of the whole evolutionist ethos. If a species can adapt to its environment without transforming itself into another species - what need, what necessity is there for it to go through the long, dangerous, indeterminate process necessary for it to evolve as evolutionists claim it happens. The answer is that there is no need at all.

[Dominic Harr]

Yes, you do, but those changes were done by intelligent designers.

This one error on your part is one I find *most* fascinating, and would like to comment on.

There *could* be an intelligent designer driving evolution. Altho it could just be the enviroment doing the 'selecting' . . . but it could also be an intelligent designer driving the environemental changes. Who knows?

But that is part of the point. Your theory does not contradict Darwin's. You just so misunderstand what Darwinism is, you're lost in your own words.

Just to address your other errors:

• Evolution is about the descent of one species from a simpler, less complex species.

  Wildly incorrect. Evolution is about the natural selection of members of a species, and how the environment guides that evolution.

• But the problem evolutionists have is that each one of those changes has to be beneficial.

  :-D This is so flat-out wrong I suspect you "misunderstand" on purpose. The environment selects the changes that live and the ones that die. Many are not beneficial. Many die. Many are *not* beneficial.

• But the question is how long can you keep saying that absence of proof does not disprove evolution?

  First, I've seen volumes of evidence of transitional forms that ya'll have been shown here. You're simply ignoring any evidence which doesn't agree with your creo theory.

  Second, saying "X can't be true because it isn't proven yet" is flat-out wrong.

Now the thing is, I've seen others explain these very same points to you over and over again, and you've willfully ignored their responses, only to repeat your already disproven errors.

I assume you'll do the same with me. Have fun.

But you, too, have to live with something new now -- the knowledge that if you believe in 'Natural Selection' you agree with Darwin.

Heehee.

Of course, it's possible you already know you're wrong, and just continue pushing the points because you've got an agenda . . . in that case, you won't care at all that you agree with Darwin while trashing him. If your agenda is to trash him, then you'll not much care if your criticisms are valid.