Saying the things polite Christians don't.

The Atheist Hypocrite

Here are a few questions you can throw at the atheist that might just take them a little off their game. I won’t be so arrogant to claim that these are all evidences of God but they are certainly food for thought.

1.  Why do we have a seven day week?

A Google search here will turn up the expected suspects, The Romans, The Greeks. With a little luck you may stumble upon the earliest recorded instance of the seven day week. Genesis.

2.  What about the moon dust?

When NASA were planning the first moon landing they were concerned that the lunar module would sink into metres of dust. This is because it is known just how much dust accumulates and therefore, it can be estimated just how thick the layer of dust on the moon’s surface should be – assuming the moon is billions of years old as is the secular standing.

Of course, the moon dust was not metres thick! Instead it was only a fine layer. This discovery supports the creationist and a young earth. So naturally, the secularists changed the science:

You will now be referred to an article published in New Scientist In 1976, by D.W. Hughes. Hughes claims a volume of space dust 1000 times smaller than that previously thought, a figure small enough to deposit a layer of a few centimetres over 4.5 billion years.

(Please note the date of this study, 1976. Since 1976 science has made leaps so great as to be almost immeasurable. The digital age has dawned. We have seen technological advances become so frequent that the astounding is now commonplace. Young people barely raise an eyebrow when confronted with the next ‘miracle’).

I mention this because the same site that I sourced this information from, The Secular Web, accuses creationists of being out of date, and of doing no outside research.

Yes, this, and they quote an inside source from ’76.

Oh, and these fools still bow and scrape at the altar of Darwin! 150 years on, disproved and discredited. Perhaps there has been too much time in the field.

Way Off the Track:

Nothing burns me up more than someone criticising me for doing something that they themselves, are guilty off.

Hypocrisy! I absolutely detest it! Our Lord Jesus also held hypocrites in a dim light.

Matthew 15: 7-9

7 “You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

8 “‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9  They worship me in vain;
Their teachings are merely human rules.’”

It’s okay for an atheist to accuse me of not knowing what I’m talking about but apparently they feel it isn’t necessary for them to do the research.

Recently I challenged an evolutionist on how new information managed to find its way into the DNA of a more highly developed specimen on the evolutionary tree. It seems like a reasonable question to me; if a creature grows an extra set of legs, an opposable thumb, lungs . . . where did this genetic information come from? To the best of my knowledge we have not yet discovered a gene that allows its owner to grow new genetic material. So, I asked the question.

I was told – in language that leads me to believe this atheist studied their craft in a waterfront bar – that I ought to buy a book and learn just what evolution is. ‘kay?

The 21st century definition of evolution has the hidden tagline . . . only valid when unquestioned. Trying to validate the claims is a crime unto itself. This pseudoscience is to be accepted without question.

As is that of the Big Bang Theory. How dare I mention evolution and the Big Bang Theory on the same page. In the same sentence no less. This is sacrilege. And what do the three, atheism, BBT, and evolution possibly have in common? Yes, I have been asked that very question. More often though I am simply asked, What does BBT have to do with it (evolution). Somehow the atheist evolutionist has managed to draw a divide between that and the Big Bang.

It would seem to the most unimaginative mind that the two are inexorably connected. In its wake, the Big Bang left one of the three following possibilities:

1/ That the earth was a barren chunk of rock upon which, due to a fortuitous mixture of chemicals, temperatures, and substances/circumstances unknown, simple life commenced, and, through further substances/circumstances unknown, developed over the years into the high tech beings we know and love today. Furthermore, said development took place leaving no trace or link between the former and latter selves. Subsequently referred to as Missing Links. Their non-appearance being a disappointment to Mr Darwin himself, who said inasmuch that this would disprove his touted theory.

2/ A chunk of rock that was visited by travellers from another solar system. These folk deposited some of their number on this planet and sort of hung around for a few billion years just waiting to see what happens.

3/ A formless chunk of rock upon which God created every living thing as we know them today and the conditions favourable for them to thrive and reproduce.

The first two do not answer the question:

Where did the first atom come from? It’s all well and good to accept the Bang but what went bang? Here the atheists get cute. They usually begin their answer with something like:

“Like most uneducated creationists . . .” They go on to say it wasn’t actually a bang, an explosion, but an expansion of a singularity.

A singularity? Can we be more vague. Time and energy, we are told (oh, yes. There was plenty of energy before the singularity), expanded spectacularly creating everything as we know it. This super dense singularity probably existed in another universe and when it expanded – for no apparent reason – it made everything.

Simple. Why can’t we idiotic creationists get it through our thick skulls?

But where did this super dense singularity come from? Where did all this energy which preceded the expansion come from? These are fair questions but they are invariably met with a kind of smug hostility.

The truth is they cannot answer these questions.

If they were capable of being entirely honest with themselves they would admit that they cannot answer these questions to their own satisfaction either.

But I digress. I did propose some questions to give your pet atheist a grilling. That couple can go on the list. Have a look at these too.

3.  Why are you so antagonistic towards Christianity?

There are a 1000 religions that the atheists could single out but Christianity seems to come under the brunt of their attack. It follows to ask – Why? Not believing in something hardly seems to be a position worthwhile investing any energy to advance.

The truth is that Christianity is The Truth. I believe that whether they recognise it or not that this Truth is visible through the clouds of smoke and mirrors put up by the atheists. The only valid reason for attacking Christianity is that they see the Truth and it is a threat.

Islam is not attacked because it is a lie. Likewise with Hinduism, the Moonies and so on. Christianity is the only religion that threatens their perilous worldview.

4. Why make the assumption that Christians or Creationists are uneducated?

This is one that really gets my goat. The smug attitude of these people. Really, I’m certain they believe that they’re the only breed who have cracked a textbook. But worse is their unquestioning adherence to the belief that the college professor has it right. They taught it at university so it must be right. Then the atheist will turn to the creationist and say, “Uneducated fool!”

Yet as a group, atheists don’t practise what they preach: frequently I find that they haven’t read the Bible, or those that have did so at a Catholic school and had a study and worship regimen forced upon them. This is often the sole source of their scriptural enlightenment (and frequently their resentment).

So often the atheist who is telling me to study evolution, learn what it is all about, are totally ignorant.

I was recently told, “Why should I read a book that says the earth is flat?”

For the record. The Bible does not say the earth is flat. Nowhere in its pages does the Bible even remotely suggest such a thing. To the contrary, the Bible tells us in Isaiah 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth . . .

There are many such quotations. Furthermore Jesus tells us in Luke 17: 34-36

34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.

35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

Note that while 2 sleep, presumably at night as the 24 hour shift way a long way off, 2 were at work in the field. Jesus was telling us many years before the astronomers learned of it, that the earth is a sphere. How could part of a flat earth be day, and part, night.

And the Old Testament tell us that the stars are infinite. This, when science was telling us that they numbered 5,000.

In Conclusion.

I really wanted to present a one-sided argument. That is the way in which Christianity has been, and is being, attacked. But in all fairness I couldn’t. Science has brought us so many wonderful things. One day we will have a cure for cancer. I don’t doubt this for a second. I’m just as certain that when we get this cure it will come from the scientific establishment. There will be a Mars landing, and a cure for HIV.

Science has given us air travel, antibiotics, vaccines. The list is almost endless. But let’s not forget that these are the people who not so long ago gave us Thalidomide, the wonderful morning sickness cure, and the atom bomb.

We must be careful to avoid the trap of thinking science is the solution for all of humanities ailments. The high, and ever increasing rate of crime, will only be solved with the application of time honoured spiritual principles. A glance at the causes should lead us to the solution. Even the most jaded atheist would not deny that there has been a major breakdown of morals over the last 50 years. They will argue that this is in response to the religious boot being lifted from humanity’s neck. But it doesn’t matter; the end result is that people are not getting their morals from the church anymore. Free will has spoken. Science, in this case the Social Sciences, has come to the rescue.

It is ironic that the very science used to refute Christianity, also supports it. This isn’t shouted very loudly, and I am certainly not knowledgable enough on the subject to add much to the argument. I have heard some wonderful scientific arguments for Christianity from some of the worlds great preachers. I’m sure most who read this have also and I’d invite you to leave any scientific arguments for Christianity and Creation in the comments.

This is an area of my own education that I would like expanded.

I leave this with a wonderful quote. Unfortunately I don’t know who it’s attributed to, nor do I remember where I heard it. It’s one of my favorites.

Once upon a time a scientist was asked if he believed in God.
“Of course not,” he responded. “I am a scientist.”
After some years and many long hours of study had passed, he was asked the same question.
“Of course I do,” he replied. “I am a scientist.”


Comments on: "The Atheist Hypocrite" (4)

  1. A seven day week is roughly 1/4 of a lunar cycle. It’s a fairly natural period for a prehistoric tribe to settle on.

    The amount of dust coming from space was vastly overstated in early attempts to measure it. Even Answers In Genesis has acknowledged that it does nothing to prove or disprove creationism, so I’m not certain why you would go there. Also, the secularists didn’t change the science, they just found better and more accurate ways to measure. This is fundamentally how science works, and yes, what we know scientifically changes over time. There’s nothing sinister about it.

    Big bang and evolution are two separate areas of scientific study, cosmology and biology. While it’s true that one couldn’t have happened without the other, specifics about the BBT won’t give insight into how the turtle evolved into its current form.

    There is a difference between saying something happened for no reason vs. saying we don’t know why it happened. There’s no reason why “I don’t know” isn’t a perfectly valid response.

    All children have mutations from their parent’s DNA. We’re not certain how many and it varies from person to person. It does seem that the mutations are more likely to come from the father, and the number of detectable mutations is greater as the father gets older. Most of the mutations will have no noticeable effect, but some will be helpful and some will be harmful. This could cause you to grow extra body parts, but the cases we know of where someone grew extra legs were the result of a conjoined twin that didn’t fully form.

    Evolution remains valid because it continues to successfully give us answers to biological problems. Many of the vaccines we have are based on knowledge gleaned from evolution, and if we should cure cancer it is also most likely to come from this field.

    Much of what you bring up has been answered. But if you discount what scientists say because it disagrees with your interpretation of the Bible, is it fair to say the scientists have no answer?


  2. Stan, it wasn’t my intention to present a full scientific treatise. Just as I didn’t demonstrate at length just how the science supports creation. What I really wanted to point out was the hypocrisy of the scientific establishment.
    I don’t know of any major religion, or minor one for that matter, that believes in any doctrine other than creation, and yet the secularists only attack the Christians.

    As for the DNA issue you did not answer the question. Mutants are variations of one kind or another on existing DNA. They do not provide additional information. For an animal to begin to walk upright, to develop lungs where there had been none, to advance from the simple to the complex requires additional information in the DNA.
    Where does this come from?
    Evolution, when faced head on like this, defies all the laws of entropy.


    • If your point was to argue that scientists are sloppy and out of date, starting with the discredited notion about moon dust isn’t the best way to go about it.

      I have seen secularists argue against other religions besides Christianity. Sam Harris regularly talks about the problems with Islam for instance. But I would expect most discussions to center on the religion that is dominant, and in English-speaking countries that tends to be Christianity. What sense would it make to argue about Zeus if no one is promoting it?

      Changes in DNA from one generation to the next are typically tiny. You would never see something like a lung spring into existence when the parent didn’t have one. But if the changes accumulate over a million generations, they can be quite dramatic. How the laws of thermodynamics apply remains an open question. It’s more correct to say we don’t know everything yet than to just say evolution defies entropy.

      I don’t believe the universe was created, but I have never thought that any scientific discoveries or theories including the big bang precluded the possibility. It’s the insistence on the idea everything was created 6,000 years ago that I find preposterous. I have watched presentations by people who call themselves Young Earth scientists trying to explain how light from stars and galaxies millions of light years away can reach us in only 6,000 years, and it just doesn’t work. Invariably they complain how the “Darwinians” won’t take them seriously, but until they can explain why their own work doesn’t defy the law of thermodynamics, they can’t be taken seriously.

      I’m also quite familiar with the Bible and I’ve never thought that it required the Earth to be so young. 2 Peter says a day with the Lord is like a thousand years. If that’s true, why must we assume the six days of creation were six literal 24-hour days and not six billion (or trillion) years?


  3. Millions of years or not. I can, and do readily accept that DNA can change according to environmental or other factors. What I don’t accept is additions to the DNA. For a life form to change from whatever it’s present state to one more complex requires not a change in the DNA but additional information to be added to it.
    However slowly, this is impossible. No self respecting scientist would argue otherwise.

    On the issue of the moon dust I did point out in the very next paragraph that a study in 1976 claims to refute the previously held idea.

    The universe screams creation. There are so many parameters that need to be exact in order for the universe to exist and life to thrive. I don’t want to present a full and thorough examination of these as this is the topic of a future post. But consider;

    Gravity: Any greater and smaller stars could not form. Any weaker and the larger stars could not form, and no heavy elements could exist.

    The moon: Any closer to earth and the resultant tides would flood the lower continents, the oceans would heat and the balance necessary for life on earth would be destroyed. A more distant moon would mean sluggish tides, endangered marine life, and a shortage of the oxygen we need for life.

    These are just a couple of the many delicate checks and balances that hold our world in place.

    Watch this spot.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s