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


It teaches us what? God is not a scientific concept. There are no peer-reviewed science papers mentioning God by name. Showing anyone the reasonableness of Christianity depends on Jesus Christ, not science. I’ve been to a number of atheist sites and it’s gotten boring. So, telling atheists that Catholics believe in evolution will get their attention but follow that up with the invisible man in the sky? They will buy the former but with no scientific evidence that any God exists, they are unlikely to buy the latter.

1970s: “God? Show me God and I might believe in him.”



God is life itself, all life comes from God and all life returns back to God. Did God have to use evolution to produce the fish , the loaves and the wine ?



He created the universe out of nothing.

1 Like





People make fake ming vases in China too, does that mean there’s no such thing as a real one? Absurd.

1 Like


Please point to the post made that said God had to use evolution to do anything. That is like saying “Did God have to use Mary to create Jesus? No, therefore God didn’t use Mary to give birth to Jesus.”



I said the evolutionary clock already started billions of years ago…think about it.



I didn’t claim that God is a sicnetific concept… did you read my post?

I said it teaches us about how God operates. Everything we learn teaches us about that… I don’t see the problem…

Whatever, I’m out. This is a fruitless discussion, so I’m not going to spend any more time on it. I still just don’t understand the problem you guys have with evolution. It literally makes no sense to me.

No one is refuting that. At least, none of the Christians here are. You don’t seem able to distinguish between the scientific principle of evolution, and the misapplication of that principle for atheistic ideals. They’re two very different things.



I did think about it, and addressed the potential for you accepting the whole fossil record in that last post.

Archeopteryx is an excellent example of an intermediate species, with several reptilian features, along with the beginnings of features from avian species.

It fits your criteria perfectly.



That fossil is in dispute.



No it isn’t.




1 Like


“another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there’s nothing much in between."

“If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies,” said Thaler. “They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space.”

The absence of “in-between” species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said."

1 Like


Did you even read that article?




1 Like


And did you even read this article?

Its like you people cherry pick a single phrase or headline that you think supports your case when the entire article argues against what you think it does.



“Archaeopteryx cant be a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and modern birds. See, look at this article that says archaeopteryx isn’t the ‘first bird’ because we’ve found a bunch of other transitional creatures between modern birds and dinosaurs.”

1 Like


It is like you people cherry pick and ignore the points that go against evo.



Apparently, a few thousand years after Genesis was written for primitve humans, they were “ready” for the science of astronomy. So there must have been a very rapid evolution of the human brain in that time interval.

Smart enough to build the Great Pyramids but not smart enough to understand basic science?

1 Like


I tried to do it once, but hurt my back.

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.