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:
Wildly incorrect. Evolution is about the natural selection of members of a species, and how the environment guides that evolution.
:-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.
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.
One must wonder why evolutionists are constantly trying to deceive people into thinking that evolution is not atheistic materialism. Evolution and intelligent design are complete opposites. Sure God could do anything, but to pass off life, his greatest creation as arising from random chance is totally ludicrous and implying a deceitfullness which no Christian would apply to their Lord.
* Evolution is about the descent of one species from a simpler, less complex species. -me-
Wildly incorrect. Evolution is about the natural selection of members of a species, and how the environment guides that evolution.
Wrong. In the first place, as I already mentioned, it was not for many years that Darwin called his theory evolution. It was alsways a theory about descent from one species to another. It was always, and still is about the descent of man from bacteria. You are just trying to confuse the issue.
* But the problem evolutionists have is that each one of those changes has to be beneficial. -me-
:-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.
Looks like in one paragraph you gave up on natural selection! Each piecemeal change that drives evolution has to be beneficial, whether a ton of them are killed off or not. It is very doubtful that the changes accepted towards the transforming of one species into another more complex one could all be beneficial. No way. Again, you are attempting to create confusion.
* But the question is how long can you keep saying that absence of proof does not disprove evolution? -me-
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.
Well I have not seen any. In fact, I have for a year been asking for one clear example of one species transforming itself into another more complex species. I have not received a single valid answer. If you know better, let's hear it. I don't want 'tons' of evidence, just one species, one single word, the name of the species that fits the requirements.
* Second, saying "X can't be true because it isn't proven yet" is flat-out wrong.
That is a total misrepresentation of my statement. Saying that evolution is true for 150 years when it has not been proven is the ultimate in dishonesty. And I am calling evolutionists on that lie. You cannot prove it, do not say it is true. You cannot prove it, do not call people names because they do not agree with you.
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.
Nope, just as I have not ignored your responses, I have not ignored those of others. What I have done with the responses of others is the same I have done with your responses above - I have refuted them. Now you may not like my refutations, you may not buy them, but I think they are perfectly legitimate points. I have made many points (and so have others) to you and other evolutionists which I think have been ignored and have in no way been refuted. so the same thing could be said about evoltionists. So let's stick to the facts.
But you, too, have to live with something new now -- the knowledge that if you believe in 'Natural Selection' you agree with Darwin.
You are absolutely wrong. Number one I totally disagree that there is a Malthusian struggle for life in which each species, or each individual, must fight for its life. Malthus was completely wrong and his chicken little theory has been proven to be totally laughable. This stupid theory is the basis of natural selection and it has been proven absolutely wrong. Second of all, even if such a struggle were occurring, destruction of organisms and their genetic material, is not and cannot be the source of new genetic material which is what evolutionists moronically state. No 4 -2 does not equal 6. 4 -2 = 2 and you do not get new traits by destroying traits which are in the genetic pool of a species. Never.