Christian Strategies

Arguments Against Evolutionism: Summary

Arguments Against Evolutionism

Darwinism and Homosexuality

Creationism and Evolutionism are Incompatible

What Jesus Says

Humans Only 6.000 Years Old

Modern Man Was 60.000 Years "Stupid"

Created from the Clay of the Ground

2 Different Recites of Creation?

What about the Origin of the Human Races?

Having Children of Different Races?

Note: concerning the 6days/Big Bang Theory and the theory explaining why the Carbone 14 dating is wrong, please refer to the link Bible and the Big Bang

Arguments Against Evolutionism

Back to top

Without contesting the scientific facts and experiments, I have however a few arguments to defend the idea of evolution by steps in opposition to continuous evolution.

• Genetic mutations in the nature can cause diseases or trigger diversity within a specie, but they don't trigger a change into a new superior specie. It is Jesus self that confirms that: several messages unmasking these evolutionist claims can be found at the French website www.apparitionsmariales.org

  Example 1: the Aids virus in a chronic patient during 30 years should change of specie and it doesn't. According to the scientists, the Aids virus takes 2 days (or 48 hours) to reproduce himself. But at each generation, the Aids virus generates at least 100 new virus, which would be equivalent to 12 generations by man, taking into account that mankind multiplied almost by 4 in the 20th century (mankind would multiply at this rate by 4x4x4=64 times in 3 centuries (hundred times in a bit more than 300 years); 300 years/25 years= 12 generations during this period of time. During a 30 year period in a chronic patient, the Aids virus would generate 30 x 365 days / 2 days = 5475 generations and a lot of serious mutations, which would correspond to 5.475 x 12 generations = 65700 generations by man (and that with the high fecundity rate of the 20th century!). Estimating 25 years per generation by man, these 65700 generations would correspond to ~1.600.000 years without a change of specie!!! And according to the science there were several changes of species of the hominids during this period... e.g. Homo_heidelbergensis

  Example 2: the E. coli experiment: this experience, having as goal to study the evolutionist features of this bacteria with time, started in 1988. The bacteria takes an average of a few hours to reproduce herself (~4 hours), and presently, we have already more than 50.000 generations ofd the bacteria (50.000 generations by man: ~50.000 generations x ~25 years/generation = 1.250.000 years). Mutant E. coli succeeded after 31.000 generations (corresponding to 775.000 years by man) to grow/survive in a environment with citric acid under oxic conditions. This feature is typical of other species of bacteria, e.g. Salmonella. But shall it be considered a change of specie, or rather an adaptation to the environment mutation? In practice, this mutation is of the same kind of those of bacteria that became resistant to antibiotics: before they were killed in an environment with antibiotics, and now they survive... nothing really new: they became mutant, but didn't change of specie (becoming in "such" case, thus, the scientific criteria of change of specie quite ambiguous and incoherent). Or should we consider people with immunity to the Aids virus as a new specie, when compared with people who become infected when in contact with the Aids virus? Not really... Conclusion: the E. coli experiment only proofs the existence of mutations, but not a jump of specie, even by mutant microbes and that for a period of 50.000 generations, enough for man to jump of specie several times (50.000 x 25 years = 1.250.000 years!): Homo Neanderthals, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo Cro Magnon...

  THE MUTANT MICROBES ARE THUS UNMASKING THE LIE OF CHANGE OF SPECIE ONLY BY NATURAL MUTATIONS, without a creator, being it a geneticist or God...

• an evolutionist can not make evolve a common ancestor of the man (e.g. Australopithecus) into an homo sapiens sapiens in a hazardous, continuous and natural way. The usual answer is : "this process takes millions of years". But in that case, they can not proof; instead, they believe without proofs: a kind of pseudo-scientific religion…

Back to top

• genetics already say that the mankind derives from a common root: an Adam and an Eve (please refer to humanmigration)
• the chemical composition of the dust and the man is the same: just to remember, the man, when he dies, he becomes again dust (fertile ground)...
• studying the fossils of the hominids, we conclude that are broken links that cause problems to the continuous evolution theory. If, indeed, God created the different species discretly, one after the other (or even simultaneously), (at least some of) these missing fossils will never appear, simply because they do not exist.
• The couple of the 2 different species originate normally a sterile animal. Ex. Mule.

A possible idea is: God created the Australopithecus, after he extinguished;… after God created the man from Neanderthal; then he extinguished; finally God created the modern man, for instance, by improvement and by reuse of 99% of the genetic code of the preceding specie. Note: what indeed happened seems to be what Jesus said about the hominids, below.

Darwinism and Homosexuality

Back to top

According to the evolutionism theories, the being livings shall adapt themselves to survive and guarantee the continuation of the specie… logically, after a period of natural selection, the strongest ones have survived and are better adapted to promote the continuation of the specie… so, the hetero attractions by humans, should become stronger and stronger and homosexual tendencies should almost disappear… but since the years 1950, the homo tendencies and attractions increased enormously, making the persons having these kind of symptoms less adapted to natural reproduction… a flagrant contradiction with the evolutionist theory? Yes, sure: that’s why this kind of ideas didn’t come out to the public: they are completely incoherent with reality, and, worse, the "lie" is immediately noticeable…

Note: to see some probable causes of homo/lesbian attractions please refer to the link Arguments Against Feminism.

Creationism and Evolutionism are Incompatible

Back to top

The Saints and prophets of the Bible and the Virgin Mary during her apparitions keep saying that Adam was the first man, created by God. If the first modern man (Adam) had a biological father, as believe the evolutionists, then we shall ask: "who was the first (modern) man, Adam or his biological father?". This ambiguity contradicts clearly what is stated in the Bible. And because the Saints and Prophets of God shall say the truth, I rather prefer to believe in them than in a science that didn't reach yet the maturity in this domain.

What Jesus Says

Back to top

According to His comments over the hominids, Jesus explains how the hominids appeared on earth. The idea is that the descendents of Cain, seduced by the evil, had sexual rapports with animals, thus originating these intermediate species, the hominids (note: this process of mix of species is however unusual). After some time, this contamination spread all over the inhabited earth, being almost all humans mixed with animals (bestiality), thus hominids. God, fed up with this disgusting situation, sent the flood, extinguishing thus the preceding "mankind". The skeletons of the hominids found by scientifics are thus the skeletons of this pre-flood "human beings".

So, I think, it could have happened something like this: a man/woman had sex with a a sort of monkey generating an intermediate specie, e.g., Homo Neanderthal; an Homo Neanderthal had sex with a kind of monkey generating Homo erectus; an Homo erectus had sex with a monkey generating Australopithecus... but God didn't create man to become monkey: there was a generalized corruption of the human specie and God sent the universal flood...

Humans and Hominids Only 6.000 Years Old

Back to top

Concerning dates, Jesus tells us that the mankind exists since 6000 years ago (please refer to the link, in French: Jesus's comments over age of mankind). That means that the dating methods, although logical, rigorous and scientific, are not correct. Any how the "millions of years" are non proofed dates. Since we were not there to see, we cannot really proof it, although the dating methods seem logical: we can not go back 1 million of years, in a (reliable) time machine, in order to see if the Australopithecus was indeed there; such dating is pure speculation; a theoretical scientific non proofed number... also the moslim story of the substitution of Jesus by another person during crucifixion seems logical, although reality contradicts it (the holy blood of Jesus - further details in section against islam). Although logical, the dating methods must agree with reality and that is impossible to proof when concerning millions of years. Indeed, the hominids should only have 4000 to 6000 years. Anyhow, any scientific dating before the Flood is non proofed: pure speculation... further details also in topic Carbon 14 from section Big Bang and the Bible

Another element to take into account is the world population: from 1900 to 2000, it increased about 3.5 times; in Algeria, the total population even increased 8 times during this period, which means it can easily increase or decrease 12 times, even 64 times, in a 200 years period... considering that the world population at Year 0 was 230 million people (according to statistics), we have that 6y²³= 230 millions persons, and that the mean increasing rate per century, y, equals 2.14 times per century, from the time of the Flood (~2300BC) to the Year 0, which is quite reasonable... please note that God may allow a higher reproduction rate in the beginning, in order to repopulate the earth, previously destroyed with the flood... note also that we take 6 as the sons of Noah and their wives, able to have new children... sources: see Wikipedia, world population topics and also World population from Year 0 to 1998

During 64.000 Years, the Modern (Intelligent) Man Was Really "Stupid"... an Evident Contradiction...

Back to top

If the modern intelligent man existed since, for example, 70.000 years ago, as some scientists do make believe, it would be strange that for such a long period, humans didn't multiply themselves, neither developed intelligent civilizations, because they were already very intelligent, able to do universitary studies like us... even if men didn't get an advanced health system for about 4.000 years ago (from the flood), it developed immediately (since the flood period) very brilliant civilizations (China, India, Middle East etc.). So, no reason for the modern man not to develop brilliant civilizations since 70.000 years ago and advanced health systems since 65.000 years ago, what would make the population growth explosive since then...

Modern "intelligent" man remained in caves during thousand and thousand of years: the first cities appeared, even taking into account the scientific (not reliable) dating, about 10.000 years ago... During 60.000 years, they were not able to build basic houses in rock or in wood? Really not? Intelligent man, like "Robinson Crusoe" and "Tarzan" can do that immediately... Note: after Adam, 6.000 years ago, the first cities and urban life appeared immediately... not to speak again about the big civilizations that developed immediately after the flood...

Modern "intelligent" man took thousands of years to move from one continent to another... But the descendents of Noah took a few centuries (about 300 years) to populate the whole earth. With ships and horses we can travel all over the world in less than 2 years... Modern man can immediately build huge ships (Noah did it) and domesticate a horse: Adam, Abel and Cain were immediately farmers and shepherds... 64.000 years not really necessary if man is really intelligent; it is not so difficult neither... With horses, we can travel 60 Km/hour (600 Km/day; 6.000 km in one month!), like the Mongols did... and the techniques used were not so advanced... to go to America from Asia, it suffices to cross the Bering Strait during summer time, or to go calmly with ships through the Pacific islands... 2 years are enough... thousands of years are not required, even if men didn't possess advanced knowledge...

Back to top

Modern "intelligent" man took ~ 58.000 years to start agriculture and cattle raising... But Adam, Abel and Cain did it immediately... Our scientific dated modern homo sapiens was so stupid, during thousands of years, isn't it? Do you really still believe in these scientific logic and credible, but false, fables for adults? Just some more arguments: it is not required to wait 58.000 years to a climate change to start agriculture and raise of cattle... The borders of the ice were in northern Germany? Didn't man appear first in Africa, according to the science? Modern man couldn't do agriculture in the Netherlands, it was too cold, OK... but it could do it in Africa, having North Africa a temperate climate like that of France today, and thus propitious to agriculture... The temperature changed about 9°C and all the vegetation changed? It is not so evident, neither... In Belgium, there are summers with highest temperatures of 35-39°C temperatures during several days/weeks... in other summers, the maxima may not exceed 25°C (sometimes the higher temperatures don't exceed 16°C, even in summer time...) and all vegetation and animals don't need to die or to be replaced... yes, they do resist... such a change of temperatures doesn't need to create immediately a revolution... the nature doesn't have to disappear; yes, changes may occur, but gradually... long dry periods are much more dramatic, but if the rain comes back, the nature react immediately (see the cases of rain in deserts...).

So, no excuse to man not to start agriculture 70.000 years ago, specially if he comes from Africa. Anyhow, the "Neolithic period" shows it: the agriculture started in the Middle East (the place of Adam and Noah, of course, discarding dates...) and not in Germany, despite the melting of the ices... anyhow, the weather in Mesopotamia and Egypt was already a lot milder, with or without the ice ages. This climate change was thus completely superfluous, sorry...

Created from the Clay of the Ground

Back to top

Just to proof that man is made from the clay (dust) of the ground, just remember the after the death, the human body decomposes and becomes again ground: man is dirt and to the dirt he shall return (Gen 3:19). And according to the book of Genesis he was created by God from the clay of the ground... With God's know how and a lot of complex biochemical reactions and it is possible for God to create a human being from the clay (further details in section Miracles explained). Just remember that miracles are rare, but they do exist: John Paul II did a proofed miracle, and, in Bruges, Belgium, in the Holy Blood chapel, there's a permanent miracle: the Holy Blood of Jesus doesn't detiorate with time... reality may also be complex and hard to believe, isn't it?

2 Different Recites of Creation?

Back to top

It may seem that there are two different and contraditory recites of the creation in the book of Genesis, the first in Gen 1:1 up to Gen 2:4a and the second in Gen 2:4b-8. The main contradiction seems to be the creation of the plants, which God did during the third day. The recite of Gen 2:4b-8 follows:

"4b At the time when Yahweh God made earth and heaven
5 there was as yet no wild bush on the earth nor had any wild plant yet sprung up, for Yahweh God had not sent rain on the earth, nor was there any man to till the soil.
6 Instead, water flowed out of the ground and watered all the surface of the soil.
7 Yahweh God shaped man from the soil of the ground and blew the breath of life into his nostrils, and man became a living being.
8 Yahweh God planted a garden in Eden, which is in the east, and there he put the man he had fashioned."

Both recites are compatible, but we have to interprete it carefully. Gen 2:4b-6 corresponds to Gen 1:1-11 (from the beginning up to the third day). Afterwards, there's an omission: what happened from the third day up to the sixth day; finally God created man and set it into the garden of Eden... so, no contradiction... please be careful with the translations of the bible, because some of them may lead to confusion... this translation was taken from the Bible of Jerusalem online... Our Lady in New York, recommended to read bibles before 1965...

What about the Origin of the Human Races?

Back to top

I believe that they are not so old, appearing after the flood, from the descendents of Noah. They have thus less than 5000 years... Believing to private messages from heaven from the French website apparitions mariales, Adam was a blond man, making thus believe that the humans before the flood were of white race (before they practiced the bestialities that generated hybrid species: hominids...). Jesus suggests also that the different races would be the product of some kind of bestiality...

According to the Bible, Noah had three sons:

• Japheth, the father of the Indoeuropean peoples, of white race
• Shem, the father of the semitic peoples, e.g. Arabs and Jews, also of white race
• Ham, the father of some white peoples but also of african black race peoples and Asian yellow race peoples

Indeed, from the Biblical genealogy of Ham, we learn that he is, among others, the father of:

• Canaan - old peoples of Israel and Lebanon, of white race, descended from Canaan...
• Caphtor - old balkan people who came to Palestina: the Palestiniens of today, of white race
• Cush - Ethiopia was known in the past as the land of Cush, and Cush might be the father of black race peoples of Ethiopia, South Sudan and Eritreia. Cush may even be the father from all black race african peoples...
• the Sinite, possibly the ancestor of the present day Chinese... note: the Sinites descend also from Canaan, son of Ham...

Further details about the table of nations since the times of the flood, in the section 'Gog and Magog' of the pdf of the section Apocalypse-decrypted.

How Can a Couple Have Children of Different Races?

Back to top

In opposition to the change of specie that requires the intervention of a very intelligent creator (e.g. God or a geneticist), the change of race happens in the nature, although being a rare phenomena. Here, the mutations can play a role...

Not long time ago, it appeared in a newspaper that an african (of black race) couple had a blond girl baby... Although rare, it happened.

Also, if you are attentive to your entourage, you may find some cases of change of (sub)races: children of the same parents, one being blond and the other of mediterranean type etc... I personally know more than one case like this...