Darwin- would he have changed his theory?

Nope. If you are refering to the concept of complexity-indicates-intelligent-design, go here.

---

The Laminator

SEBASTES writes: Watching the various posts within this site makes me question peoples knowledge of Darwins own theory.

(1) Could you site some examples where evos here don't know what they are talking about?

(2) Some of the people you are referring to are real live scientists. The last guy that tried to be a smart-ass who thought he could outsmart scientists using his common sense proved to everybody that he didn't know what he was talking about. Refer to this thread for an example of what I am talking about.

(3)Could you please leave an extra line between your paragraphs like what I am doing to make your post a lot more readable?

(4) You stated:

To answer the question posted: Darwin did change his own theory within his own works. Being an outstanding Naturalist, I'm sure he would have changed alot of ideas knowing what we do today!

Could you give us specific examples from Darwin's own works for us to discuss about?

---

He's not dead. He's electroencephalographically challenged.

SEBASTES writes: (1) I would like to say that I am not trying to be a smart ass. When I was speaking, it was a general comment. Not one towards those that have read the Bible and Darwin's works. I will ensure that comments made, will not be in the general sense.

Ok.

(2) I can't imagine any naturalist, scientist, biologist or even world leaders that wouldn't have change their thoughts as time goes by.

Good, you learned how to use the paragraph.

(3) Do you think that we would have used the A-bomb, if we had the technological advancements that we have today during WWII? Knowing how smart Darwin was then, only makes me wonder what theories or conclusions he would have came up with during our times.

Ok.

(4) I will ensure to post a quote from Darwin within a few days. I want to ensure the quote is verbatum. It was on his thoughts concerning the flashlight fish.

Patiently waiting.

---

He's not dead. He's electroencephalographically challenged.

SirPimpsalot writes: Unproven? After an exhaustive 5 minutes, two man internet search, yes..........

Just so you know, the way it works around here is the burden of proof, or at least show some evidence, always falls on the side that claims the positive. Otherwise, the side the claims the negative is presumed to be right.

Sorry I missed you when you first started posting. Welcome

---

He's not dead. He's electroencephalographically challenged.