Because Darwin died in 1882, there is no way that Darwin could have known about DNA or the genome. But science is not static, it's dynamic. It not like somebody just says something which they think is true and everyone agree that seems legit and everyone continues their merry way, case closed. Absolutely not. Darwin not being sure if his hypothesis is correct or not in the long term is meaningless.

Just to play devil's advocate, there's a degree of belief involved in science as well.  When you "prove" something in science, the results are agreed to be fact based off of multiple tests, but there's no real "knowing" in the results.  We assume certain things are true, and then it is, by some extent, a belief.  
However, that's mostly just going into the annoying level of calling things "beliefs" and such, and should be ignored when discussing topics like this, because then 1+1=2 would also fit under belief.

We still have no observeable evidence that a species has turned into to something that looks different. Give me observeable evidence that some fish evolved into land creatures, or that we have evolved from something.

In other words, until we can trace back to the first human, and what was before them, or we do a really long-term study on a species, Evolution is not proven or unproven.

It shouldn't even be allowed be called Chrtianisty? I'm sorry to have to deliver the bad news, but you lack basic intelligence and that statement is highly offensive so remove it or change it.

Christian = Believe in Christ/ Jesus.

Catholic = The original christian church up to the point where and English King decided he wanted to kill and/or divorce his wives then remarry, so he invented his own church.

Just because every backwater hick in the USA thinks he can interpret the bible as he sees fit and call himself christian, it doesn;'t mean you can claim that Catholics are not Christians even though their church was set up by an actual apostle of Christ and is the oldest and largest (by far) Christian Church in existence.

How do you define "observable evidence" really?  If you have to see it for yourself?  Because if you do, there's a whole lot of stuff you need to start doubting. 

This isn't how you help people to believe. You don't insult other religions or sects of Christianity. You should do it gently, not forcefully.

Here you go: http://www.transitionalfossils.com/ . Here's some more transitional forms: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms . Fish can't turn into a land creature in a time span you or I can observe, these thing literally do not happen overnight, these things take millions and millions of years. Ever wonder why bacteria are becoming resistant to antibiotics? That's evolution in action for you.

Also ever wonder where they are so many different types of dogs, big and small? That's just an example of microevolution, the only difference between microevolution and (marco)evolution is timescale. I think you should read this and educate yourself. http://evolutionfaq.com/.

Evolution is accepted by virtually every scientist in the Western world and is defined as a fact. If you somehow manage to prove evolution is wrong, all the science in the past 120 years is wrong and you can do this with the scientific method, you will win a Nobel Prize for that. And to that I say, good luck.

its already happening!

again this evolution is fact nonsense.

show me one proof where one 'species' a fish for example evolved into another 'species'  an ape,dog,chihuahua,human...

Firstly I wouldn't have thought the Catholic Church needed much help exposing itself.

Secondly to those stating that Catholicism isn't Christianity, where did the non-Catholic Christian religions come from?