>Thanks for that.

you're welcome.

> I don't deny evolution because of a creationist belief,
because evolution still does not deny God.

a quick reality check denies God.

>However, I think it falls
short indeed and should not be called a fact.

I don't care whether it's called a fact or not.

>There are faults with it
which includes the genetic info. problem at the core.

There are faults with all theories that attempt to explain complex natural
phenomena.

> There is NO KNOWN
PROCESS WHICH ADDS NEW INFO TO THE GENETIC CODE. Genetic changes can only
be blamed on chemical or nuclear influences which are only known to
damage the genetic code.

you do not understand genetics.

>This is why i say that the explanation of
variation within species is a better explanation because species evolving
into other species is NOT a fact, it is an unproven hypothesis with some
definite holes in it.

Only because you refuse to review the evidence.

> And for something to be proven it can't have such holes in it.

you wouldn't say that if you did not believe in God.