Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true


Seriosuly dude, stop being pruposefully obstuse. You’re acting like an atheist or a fundamentalist, and are not actually attacking what we’re claiming.

Just stop it, you’re making yourself look stupid.

Atheistic evolution doesn’t require God. We (most of us) reject atheistic evolution. We believe that evolution was guided by God. Why do you have so much trouble understanding this? Again, I have to compare you to atheists. For people who don’t want to know, no evidence will suffice…

God doesn’t need evolution, I agree; but that doesn’t mean He didn’t use evolution as the means to develop our physical bodies. The lack of need does not equate to a lack of actuality. God didn’t need to create us, yet here we are.




Does my sparkplug need God? Or the Pythagorean Theorem?



Uh, you do realize that earth’s climate has changed pretty significantly even over the last 2000 years, right?

1 Like


I actually did go into detail but apparently you refuse to read or even watch videos designed so that even elementary school students can understand them.

At this point we’re at a pearls before swine situation. I cant force you to actually bother to learn anything and you’re just continually embarrassing yourself with very basic mistakes.

1 Like


Yes, I’m an atheist when comes to macroevolution, it surely can’t be seen happening in this day and age.



By definition, macro evolution cannot be seen at any single point in time. The present is like a single image in a flipbook, it looks static. It’s only when you set the pages in motion that the animation comes to life.

You’re demanding evidence that, by necessity of the nature of the question, cannot exist.

Again, just like an atheist who demands physical proof for God within the realm of the sciences… It’s logically impossible.



That is the case. Some things cannot be explained adequately.




Please stop the accusations. Halton Arp worked with Edwin Hubble who told him the redshifts may be something else. There are reported galaxies moving away from us at faster than light speeds (called superluminal).



Do you feel the same way about the development of stars, mountains, forests, etc?

I mean I’ve never seen a forest pop up in the middle of nowhere so all trees must be created by God individually fully formed. I believe in micro-tree growth where a tree can grow a little bit over time but I refuse to believe that a tree can grow from a seed into a full grown tree, and certainly not that one tree can become multiple trees. Where does the extra bark come from? What are the odds that all the bark would be put on a single tree and not be all over the place on the ground. How can a tree “know” how to grow so the roots are down and the leaves are up? Botany cant explain that. And I refuse to read anything that might explain it.

1 Like


Red shift isn’t the only measuring tool, and there’s nothing saying the number is 100% accurate. I imagine it’s probably not. We’re dealing with unimaginably-huge distances here.

The point I’m trying to make is that there is well-documented evidence for why a particular understanding is accepted. To simply ignore those reasons is, ultimately, exactly the same as atheists who reject the philosophy behind our theological positions. The only difference is which subset of knowledge is being embraced, and which is being ignored.



Lol, given how hard it is to explain basic concepts in biology to you folks I dont think general relativity is in the works.



Evolution is of no practical use to anyone. Nothing is being ignored. On this forum, over a period of years, all I’ve seen is a campaign to sell a product, not unlike Coke or Pepsi. Biology concerns things that are alive today.

1 Like


I literally showed you a video with dozens of examples of the uses of evolution and explained how I use the concept in my own work. Are you just ignoring what other people say or outright lying?



How did life on Earth begin, and please don’t say…that’s abiogenesis.



I agree, evolution is inconsequential to the question of salvation. It’s not important you embrace it, and embracing it or not embracing it won’t have any impact on your eternal outcome.

However, it does teach us about God, and how He chooses to operate. It also gives us a common groundwork we can start from to try to show atheists the reasonableness of the faith. If we discount sound scientific principles simply because we either refuse to learn about them, or reject them on fundamentalist grounds, then they won’t listen to anything else we listen to. If you want to present a reasonable argument against evolution and engage them that way then that’s one thing, but that’s not what’s happening here. In this thread, it’s just a bunch of straw men and disregard for established evidence…



We don’t know, scientifically, how life began. Personally, I don’t think we ever will because I don’t think the origin of life has a natural cause.

That doesn’t change the physical mechanics of development.



Where did the first tree come from? Don’t know? Well then trees can’t come from trees then, they are all made basically in their current state fully formed.

This is what you sound like.



All you have to do is show me one plant or animal that’s in a halfway transition into becoming a completely new organism and I will believe. The clock started ticking so-called 4.5 Billion years ago, surely you can find one thing out of all the millions and millions of plants and animals species out there.



… Seriously dude… just… seriously…

Nothing ever appears halfway between becoming a new species, mainly because we can’t see the future of each individual species.

Take humans, overall we’re taller than we used to be. We only know that now because we can look back and see what we were. Each time a tall person was born they weren’t the next step in human developments towards being overall taller, they were just a slightly taller guy.

The same is true for everything. If a tree grows with slightly wider leaves, we can’t look at that now and say that this tree is halfway along it’s development to becoming a super-broad leaf tree. We just see a tree with slightly broader leaves. It’s not until enough change has happened that we’ll be able to see the developmental process.

If a fish has slightly darker scales than it’s parents, it’s not on it’s way to becoming a new species of new, completely-nocturnal predator, using the dark to it’s advantage. It’s just a slightly darker fish.

Again, you’re asking for irrational things.

But whatever, I’m done. It’s obvious you’re not interested in being rational. You’ve adopted the Fundamentalist mindset for this particular discussion, but it’s not all that important, so whatever. I’m done trying to inject evidence into your understanding; you’re obviously not interested.

Now, if you’re talking in terms of the whole fossil record, then yeah Archaeopteryx is a good example, as Alreju noted. There are also all the hominid species, that’s a fairly comprehensive record.




1 Like

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.