Why Atheists Lose the Debate Every Time

There is one extremely vital difference between the Christian Creationist and the Atheist Evolutionist. What is that difference? Study.

"To be absolutely certain about something, one must know everything or nothing about it." Olin Miller

In order to be able to speak on or against something, you must actually look into it honestly and truthfully. Hearsay—parroting what some other fool has declared in utter ignorance—merely makes you look unintelligent and foolish. If you are not willing to put forth the time and energy to study something in order to know something about it and represent it accurately, then your mouth has no business being open attempting to say anything about it. How does the saying go? "Put up or shut up!"

How many Atheist Evolutionists flapping their gums against Christianity and the Bible have actually looked into it fully? How many have actually read and studied the Bible, rather than regurgitate the false claim that there are "many contradictions" in the Bible? You see, the Christian will look into the claims of the Atheist, studying the evidence, which only strengthens his/her case. But the Atheist will never study the Bible because he/she is scared of it! Every Atheist who has ever honestly and truthfully studied the Bible in order to try and prove it wrong has ended up becoming a Christian.

Because Atheists have zero evidence to back their position, Atheists continually attempt to blame God for the human-created problems in the world. They blindly believe that man is basically good, denying the plain evidence their eyes and ears are constantly witness to. The world is in the condition it is because of sinful man. Suffering and death exist because of man. Things are corrupt and continue to be corrupt because of man. Do something about man and all of that ends.

Atheists who attempt to charge Christians with the accusation of equating Evolution with how life originated are being dishonest. They are being dishonest against the Christian, but they are also being dishonest with themselves. While Evolution does not completely have to do with how life originated, it does, however, address it, which makes it partially related. The fact that Evolution teaches that all life originated from "primordial soup" attests to Evolution's theory of how life originated. There is zero misrepresentation there by the Christian.

But over all, Evolution specifically addresses how one life form supposedly changes into another. This, however, has been disproved time and time again. There is zero fossil evidence of one life form changing into another. There has also never been observation of one life form changing into another. Every animal on Earth today has always been the animal it is today. It has never changed from something else. Bananas and pandas are not related. They do not have a common ancestor. The idea that a frog can become a man originates from a fairy tale. Supplementing one ingredient (time) for another ingredient (kiss) will not suddenly make it a reality.

"Natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" likewise disprove and destroy the theory of Evolution. Even if it were given one trillion years, "natural selection" would never create a new species. Macroevolution is 100% false! Any "scientist" who is the least bit a scientist by trade, paying attention to actual science rather than blind imagination, knows that "slight changes" are impossible. Every mechanism must be there all at once or else the species would die. To educate yourself on the intricacies and complexities of several species, watch the documentaries Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution (Vol. 1; Vol. 2; Vol. 3).

For example, which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)?

1. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
2. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
3. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?

Any "scientist" worth his/her salt knows that any one of these things without the others would not function properly. You need all of them or none of them. All need to be present at once, or none of them. Since genes are passed down from parents to offspring, and since inter-species reproduction is impossible (a cow and a horse will never mate), each animal will never be anything other than the animal it already is. The sinonyx never became the humpback whale. Dinosaurs (dragons) never became birds. Each possesses a completely different and unique set of genetics that are not compatible. Atheists are dishonest with the evidence, with others, and especially with themselves.

Atheists ask Christians to prove that God exists, but then deny the evidence presented to them. What the Atheist needs to do is define exactly what constitutes "evidence" in their eyes. That way, when the Christian presents it to them, they cannot back peddle and attempt to deny it (though they will anyway).

There are a million different questions that Atheists are unable to answer. Here are a couple more: How could an intelligent being come from a lesser being? Since science is a self-correcting process, and not an absolute, who created science?

"You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it." G. K. Chesterton