The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Athiest Arguments Against Evolution

Recently I have been having conversations at work at lunch time with someone who claims to be atheist.
He ignorantly claims that there is reasonable proof of evolution, and adimently claims that the Bible makes silly claims such as a global flood etc.
I am going to ask him to prove those claims, but he asked me to prove my claims as well.
Researching this issue, I looked at previous discussions of this nature here on the Highway forums.
Something Pilgrim said caught my eye that I thought might be helpful in my discussion with this person.
In order to do that I thought I would ask Pilgrimn to expand on what he said.
Pilgrim you basically said that even when you were an
atheist, you didn't agree with evolution. Can you tell me why?

Tom

Tom,

Even as an Atheist, Rom 1:17ff was evident in my life, i.e., as I pondered the world and the visible universe, just logic alone screamed at my intellect that it was impossible that my origin was from some primordial slime and that all things suddenly came into existence from nothing. Paul, by the Holy Spirit states that ALL MEN know (perceptually) and by the testimony of conscience that is part of being made in the image of God (Imago Dei), that there is a Creator. But, he goes on to state that even knowing these things, the unregenerate suppresses this truth and substitutes that truth for a lie. That is exactly what I did. It isn't that this truth cannot be known, for it surely is, but it is rejected out of hand by the natural man and because of that rejection which is without excuse, the wrath of God is upon us.

Being that this is axiomatic, does not mean that the natural man must embrace it. Contrariwise, it displays the hopeless condition of man, he being spiritually dead and a hater of God from which divine intervention is absolutely necessary for deliverance.

Psalms 14:1 (ASV) "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works; There is none that doeth good." (cf. Ps. 53:1)

Pilgrim
I actually gave this person that answer before and I didn't get a response.
Which I guess should not surprise me.
What I am a ltttle surprised at is that you admitted while still an atheist, that you knew there was a God.
Why would an atheist admit that there is a God and still claim to be an atheist?
How did you justify being an atheist?
Would I be correct that you are not in favour of engaging in Creation vs. evolution discussion with scientific argument?
Tom

No, I did NOT admit that there was a God. You obviously misunderstood what I wrote. I refused to accept that my origin was from some primordial slime as evolutionists claim. But I just as vehemently denied that there was a God who created all things. This is why I quoted Rom 1 to show my own personal condition at the time, i.e., I had closed my mind and hardened my heart against the truth concerning the existence of God and substituted a lie, albeit not accepting Darwinianism.

According to Scripture, ALL MEN know that there is a God for His existence is undeniable from the testimony of the things which He has made, i.e., the world around us AND from one's own conscience within. But men cast off all this testimony, denying it all by substituting all manner of silly notions of which evolution is but one.

Pilgrim

I couldn't agree with you more that the Scriptures clearly teach that everyone knows there is a God.
What I struggle with however, is knowing this fact, do I actually engage them in their questions concerning science and things like the global flood; creation vs. evolution etc...
Or do I ignore their questions and use Scripture only?

I know that God and God only can open the eyes of anybody through the proclamation of the Gospel. However does this truth also mean that conversations such as the flood etc are not worth my time and energy?
Do you understand where I am coming from?

Tom

It's a matter of expediency and ability on your part. IF you surmise that there is an genuine interest in the person to hear valid arguments against evolution and for creationism, then by all means devote yourself to the task at hand. There are good non-biblical arguments which support the biblical teaching which can be used. However, it is the Spirit of God working through the Gospel that is God's appointed means of bringing sinners to Christ, e.g., Rom 1:16 which interestingly enough is what precedes Paul's judgment upon all mankind for rejecting the one true God who is the Creator of all things.

Remember always, nothing "proves" what the Bible teaches. Evidence of a global flood, e.g., is the reality of the flood. One need not find Noah's Ark to show that Noah built the Ark and thus elicit faith. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God. ALL men are spiritually deaf and need the Spirit's regenerating work to be able to hear, comprehend and believe any and all of God's truth. We are simply God's workmen who plant a few seeds, water here and there but the giving of life and growth belongs to God. Our task is not to "win arguments", but to be faithful to God and His truth.

Pilgrim

Thank you, for the great reminder that nothing proves what the Bible teaches.
Yesterday, although I didn't have any time to talk with this person, I did give him something I found at:
www.answersingenesis.org on the subject of the global flood. The main reason I did so is because he told me that he has studied the subject and said that there is absolutely no evidence of a global flood. During my research I did find out that what he said is a widely held view of a lot of people; including professing Christians.
Though I am not sure he will agree with the information I gave him, I do hope it is enough to show him that a global flood is a reasonable conclusion to come too based on the evidence man has uncovered.
I have found that when a person looks at the arguments from both sides of the issue, it is not usually a matter disagreeing with the facts as we know them. Rather, it is the conclusions (presuppositions) we reach based on the facts.

Tom

I'm wondering if you meant to say, "Rather, it is the presuppositions held which determine one's interpretation of the facts and the conclusions reached."

Pilgrim
Sorry, that is what I meant.

Tom