… evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

(2 Timothy 3:13)

The atheist about whom I wrote last week actually responded. It surprised me. Something I’ve noticed about atheists is their inability to focus on any one thing and examine it thoroughly. Instead they resort the “fire hose tactic” by trying to overwhelm their opposition with more “evidence” than one can respond to – all of it unsubstantiated, of course. I find that one advantage of writing over speaking is that I can select the topic to which I will respond, and rather than going into great detail to defend my position, I just refer the atheist to articles written by real scientists that present a contrary view. The atheist prides himself in being “open-minded,” so this allows him to practice what he preaches.

I do not want to burden my readers with every detail of the conversation, but the following are some of the points the atheist attempted to make, along with my commentary.

• Some species that have evolved throughout the recorded history of mankind. Examples – The fish in the Hudson River evolving to survive the toxic waste, the South-East Fence Lizard which has learnt [sic] a defensive ‘dance’ to fight off ant predators, the Lerista Skink that’s evolved to shrink its legs to travel through the Australian sands more efficiently, slithering instead of walking with legs.

Here the atheist is equivocating. I had previously warned the atheist not to do this, but there is only so much one can expect from a reprobate mind (Romans 1:28).  Evolutionists often confuse “adaptation” (microevolution) with macroevolution – one kind of animal changing into another. In his examples, the fish is still the same species of fish. It did not change into a whale or grow legs to walk out of the polluted waters. The lizard is still the same species of lizard. The lerista skink genus, according to the Wikipedia, “is especially notable for the variation in the amount of limb reduction. The variation ranges from short-bodied forms with large legs bearing five toes, to elongate forms completely lacking legs” (emphasis added). “Variation” does not equal “evolution.”

• Humans share (approx) 96% of their genes with Chimpanzees, 90% with Cats, 80% with Cows, 75% with Mice (90% of Mice’s genome can be lined up with certain regions on the human genome, also with 99% of Mice’s genes turning out to have analogues in humans), 60% of Fruit Flies’ DNA is shared, 60% of genes with Chickens, and so on.

If anything, the similarity in DNA among animals and even plants speaks to a common designer not to evolution. The information coded and stored in DNA are the instructions necessary to make a human being human or a dog either a Great Dane or a Chihuahua.  Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins, biologist with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) has written much on this subject. His research shows that the similarities between human and chimp DNA are not as close as first proclaimed, and the gap grows greater the more he investigates. (See: Chromosome Comparison Shows More Chimp-Human Differences.)

The atheist then pointed to Darwin’s finches at the Galapagos Islands. That really is no different than what has already been covered above. Typically, what I have noticed about atheists is that they parrot things that they have heard without bothering to think critically about what they have heard. They simply regurgitate what they have been fed. His next point is a good example:

• Big Bang Theory… 13.7 billion years ago (somewhere around that mark), not 5,000 years (almost hilarious to believe the world is that young with the overwhelming amount of proof), something quite large happened. Not an explosion like most Religious parties believe happened, nothing like if a balloon were to pop and all its contents were to spill out in all different directions. It happened more like a small balloon finitely expanding to the size of the Universe as it is now. What caused this, no-one knows, the mathematics behind it are [sic] crazy and extreme for humans to even grasp.

If “religious parties” portray the Big Bang as an “explosion,” it is because that is how it was initially portrayed by Sir Fred Hoyle (and others), the man who coined the phrase in 1949. Current theoretical physicists promulgate this idea by what is presented on the mass media. While they speak about “inflation,” they present images that imply an explosion. Contrary to the atheist’s portrayal of “religious parties,” creation scientists would lean more toward the side of “inflation” (without the billions of years) as this view lines up better with biblical instruction (Job 26:7; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22; 44:24; Zechariah 12:1). The atheist ignores that there are competing views among secular scientists on how the Big Bang developed. The jury is still out on which is the correct interpretation. So, like all fools, the atheist builds on a foundation of sand (Matthew 7:26).

• Our sun alone is 4.57 billion years old, after it collapsed (along with many other stars) from being a part of a giant molecular cloud (Hydrogen + Helium). For god to have created the sun 5,000 years ago, it would still be in the process of its collapse and Earth would still being in its process of creation, much more flat and disc-shaped.

In the first place, gas does not collapse; it expands, which is an argument against current star formation theories. This is a carefully guarded secret. As for God not being able to create in a short amount of time, obviously the atheist is not familiar with the omniscient, omnipotent God of creation.

At this point, the atheist begins his assault on God. He begins his attack with words straight from the devil’s mouth: “You’re god is the only true god?” Then he lists several pagan gods. Interestingly he finds the parallels between the pantheon of Asherah, who is impregnated by a ray from the sun god, gives virgin birth to a son, who is killed and rises again. There are several variations of this theme in ancient pagan religions which predate Christianity. Asherah is called the “Queen of Heaven,” a title which is currently carried by the Virgin Mary of the Roman Catholic Church. Let us face it; Satan is not stupid. He is the foremost counterfeiter. Jesus called him the father of lies (John 8:44). Sadly, the atheist has willfully accepted the lie as evidenced by his charge that “Christianity and its bible [sic] is simply a mish-mash, hand-me-down of all the most memorable elements and factors of thousands of different ‘pagan’ religions that came a long time before it.”

As previously stated, often the atheist’s strategy is to overwhelm his opponent with a barrage of stupid questions. (Yes, there are stupid questions – those that are not thought out before presenting them.) Here are some examples:

• About Adam and Eve … They ate from the ‘Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil’ which disobeyed god…right? Just one problem: How could have Adam and Eve been expected to comprehend the implications of their actions if, prior to their indiscretion, they had no concept of right and wrong, punishment, evil, pain, suffering and death? Even if god had been successful in adequately explaining all these beforehand, this means that he would have had to give them knowledge of good and evil anyways, which turns the entire story into one big ridiculous farce. A loving, just and secure god would realise [sic] that simply not believing in him is not a crime worthy of hellfire.

The atheist assumes that Adam and Eve were supposedly created with lower intelligence rendering them incapable of understanding God’s only rule (Genesis 2:16-17). This rule seems straightforward and simple enough that any child can comprehend it. This was answered in last week’s post, so I will not comment on it further other than to say the atheist was either not paying attention or his reprobate mind kept him from seeing it.

• God doesn’t make mistakes, as you put it, he is perfect in every aspect, therefore his creations were perfect too… so why then did he flood the entire Earth killing thousands, if not millions of innocent people, along with some of the ‘sinners’… they couldn’t have been ‘sinful’ because god made them, and he’s perfect and so were his creations. There would be no way they could have turned against him, because they were perfect (research the word ‘perfect’ think you’re using the wrong one).

The atheist missed the part about the fall of man (Genesis 3:6), also covered in last week’s post. That is what makes these kinds of questions stupid, and they are designed to distract the opponent from the main point – that God is Creator of all and His creation is accountable to Him – like it or not.

The atheist went on to make more absurd arguments, and I do not want to bore my readers; but what follows is the saddest thing of all. This was his response to the Gospel message that I presented to him:

• Jesus’ “sacrifise” [sic] … For Jesus to have made a blood sacrifice for our sins is impossible. A blood sacrifice cannot ‘pay’ for a person’s sin, it is an archaic, deeply flawed view of morality that says that, as long as there is blood spilled to appease god (and with Jesus’ blood being innocent at that), then the crime is forgiven. How can someone else pay for your sins? In what sense is morality and justice served if someone, let’s say, offers to take the place of a condemned criminal in the electric chair? Does this change the fact that the condemned criminal has not been held responsible for his actions? And how is the innocent death anything more than a sad, pointless waste that doesn’t add anything to the overall moral equation?

It intrigued me that he should see the futility of blood sacrifices. God shares the same attitude: “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4). But the innocent, sinless blood of the God-Man is ultimately superior: “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Hebrews 10:10).

The atheist had much more to say, but I found it wearisome, tedious and mind-numbing. The Bible tells us to “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15). But the Bible does not put the burden of conversion on the shoulders of the witness; that work is for the Holy Spirit. But we should not withdraw when challenged by an unbeliever just because we assume it will be time wasted. Often, your words, no matter how well put together or how brilliantly argued, will fall upon deaf ears. Occasionally though, you may find that one that is ignorant, knows it, and truly wants to learn the truth. That one is worth the effort!