Conversation With An Atheist

[Musicmaster]

Following is a conversation I'm having with an avowed atheits (so-called), who believes that he had a genuine faith in God back when was nine years old:

You have no way of knowing whether or not I truly believed/repented at age 9. The fact is, you refuse to contemplate the possibility that I did. You refuse to contemplate the possibility that I did because, if true, it would destroy your entire worldview.

Rational, critical thinking requires considering all possible explanations for a given situation.
You have excluded one possible explanation because it does not fit with your worldview. You are unwilling to consider the possibility that your world view is wrong. That is not rational. thinking.

Gary, if you are a believer in rational thought, then you should be able to admit, rationally speaking, that believing and then disbelieving are total opposites, and you you're going to try and tell me that you had a genuine, experiential belief, or at least try and put for the idea that you had a truly abiding faith?

Alright, then, declare that you don't believe in the existence of your own parents, and THEN we can talk about the possibility that you had just as much of a belief in God back then.

I have already stated to you that faith in God is not on the same plane as faith in the existence of one's own parents. Your parents are not spiritual beings, and yet you operate as if God should reveal Himself in the same manner.

What part of the differences do you not understand? I mean, I'm willing to answer your questions with rational, sound answers, but you keep blundering off into the same fallacies. How much more clear could I possibly make it to you that faith in God is at a level that He has mandated for all of humanity, and that you shaping your beliefs around the weaknesses of your own physical senses is not where the Lord operates. He makes Himself more real to His TRUE followers than what we can see with our eyes. Don't you get that...? Oh, well, maybe not. You've never been there, have you? That's by your own admission.

So, perhaps I'm being a bit unfair asking you about something you've never experienced because of your lack of faith. You ASSUME you had that level of faith, and what I'm sharing with you is that such thinking is wrong, as is evidenced by where you are right now in your beliefs...or lack thereof. Grasp the obvious here, ok? Your belief in the existence of your own parents is based upon the physical and rational proof for their existence. Your lack of faith in God is based upon the lack of physical proof for His existence that you subjectively demand be presented...at the exclusion of all the beauty and laws that govern all of nature, and therefore screams of intelligent design that you choose to not accept as evidence for the intelligent design that's all around us.

Gary, what it boils down to is what I said before: You want a god that is subject to you and your demands rather than to accept the One who is above your desire for what you think as to how He should conduct Himself over His own creation. That's the problem. Your having lapsed into unbelief is evidence of the fact that there was a serious flaw in what you thought was your "faith." That wasn't faith when it so easily became shaken to the point that you fell out of the tree...so to speak.

You declare disbelief in your own parents, perhaps you will then see the absurdity in your assumptions that your faith in God was ever as intact and as strong as your belief in your parent's existence. This isn't that hard to grasp, Gary. You're spinning your wheels because you think that your faith was that strong and as well established, when in fact it wasn't. Claiming otherwise is utter futility.

 

[Musicmaster]

I said: To my experience, Jesus is more real than my own parents.

To which you then asked: Based on what evidence?

Gary, were I to waste my time listing all the experiential proofs I have lived through, none of it would matter to you. None of it would meet the subjective standard of what you consider acceptable proof. Like so many others, you are exercising the power to ensure this all ends up in a no-win scenario of discussion. Nothing will ever convince you of all that so happens to be outside the confines of what you demand for evidence. I can't take your nose and rub it in the bowl of my experiences to the extend that anything would stick.

So, why not ask something rational? I've already presented the scenario whereby you would come face to face with your irrationality, and you refuse to go there. Fear is a powerful force, Gary. Your fear of the rational is becoming more and more evident.

So, how can you prove to me that your faith back then was as strong as your faith in the existence of your own parents? What's it gonna be? Huh? Got faith? Got no faith? Do the comparison, and perhaps you will then grasp the enormity of the implications.

 

[Musicmaster]

All, this conversation with Gary shows how his past and his present screams out against the foundational doctrines of God's word that he never did allow to become the support structure for his beliefs back when he was nine.

Additionally, he obviously had nobody to disciple him in sound doctrine so that he would then become aware of his weak faith, and what needed to be done to bolster the foundations of his newly found beliefs. Like so many others, he was left to flounder around in the hopes that he would happen to stumble upon that narrow path on his own. Like so many others, he didn't find that path because he had nobody to lead him to it for him to THEN make a decision as to if he was going to walk that path, or not. The broad path has thus far been too great a lure for him to once again discover that narrow way, and walk it to its destination.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

"You don’t need to specifically say anyone is “going to Hell” in order to act as a “judge.” Everything you have written to Gary and me and others on this blog has been nothing but pure judgement; i.e., you are making conclusions, assessments, determinations, and subjective opinions about us as related to our spiritual (or non-spiritual) lives.

A clear example of just one of your assumptions is when you wrote: You have not established yourself on that narrow path that few walk upon. You admittedly are on that broad path that leads to destruction.

You don’t know me any more than I know you. Everything you have written could be simply your desire to demonstrate what you consider your spiritual superiority over others. In actuality, behind the curtain, you could be as guilty of every accusation you throw out at others. That’s the anonymity that comes with blogs.

I’m done. I’m not taking up any more space on Gary’s blog. Have a nice life, SMJr. But don’t be surprised when you close your eyes that last time and … nothing happens."

Really, Nan? Superiority? Me? Come now. You declared your disbelief in God, and my pointing at the evidence that declaration points to is a matter of me judging you? This attempt at turning the tables of reality over onto the floor is a wasted effort. I said to you already that I am not judging your ultimate destination. Never once did I say you're going to Hell. I don't know that. How many times do I have to say that before you get it? I pointed only to where you stand right now, by your own admissions.

On the other hand, please don't try to play me. You're out-classed here. Going from a presumed "faith" to the polar opposite, and then claiming that the former was absolutely intact when present evidence shows that it was not, you're fooling only yourself...again. Trying to pretend that you don't judge others, when in fact you do, that speaks for itself.

Jesus said in John 7:24, "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment."

Trying to use the "judge not" as your battering ram to try and silence me from pointing out the obvious, that too is an exercise in futility.

Now, are you willing to discuss your lack of faith back then, or not? It's up to you.

 

[Musicmaster]

"Provide good evidence that Jesus is still alive and that you have a relationship with him."

Alright. Gary, I love you. My love for you is not only what has been commanded of us as true followers of Christ Jesus. My continued correspondence with you, given that I have nothing to gain from any of this on this earth, should serve as ample evidence for my Christ-like love for you, Nan and all others here. I love you all with a love that can only come from Christ Himself, not only because that's what's written in the Bible. He is within me to the full extent, which gives to me the capacity love you and all others here in spite of our disagreements.

Now, please don't assume, like this modern culture of ours, that love is defined by total acceptance of all conduct and beliefs. True love is sometimes tough, and gives rug burn to those who are in the wrong. Love sometimes takes folks out to the wood shed for correction. It's not loving to say to everyone that where they are is ok. Parents who refuse to discipline their children when it's needed don't really love their children so much as they love the vain philosophies of this fallen world.

So, Gary, tell me; what manner of proof and evidence will you accept? If this isn't good enough, then what is? Where have you set that bar?

 

[crossnote]

Gary had said, "Rational, critical thinking requires considering all possible explanations for a given situation."

As an atheist, I wonder if Gary himself had 'considered all possibilities' concerning the existence of God. Had he truly explored and closely examined all the possible variables, or was his a priori rejection based on his previous worldview? pot/kettle.

 

[crossnote]

"You don’t need to specifically say anyone is “going to Hell” in order to act as a “judge.” Everything you have written to Gary and me and others

I take it the person writing this response is not Gary, but a 'Nan'?

 

[crossnote]

Now, please don't assume, like this modern culture of ours, that love is defined by total acceptance of all conduct and beliefs. True love is sometimes tough, and gives rug burn to those who are in the wrong. Love sometimes takes folks out to the wood shed for correction. It's not loving to say to everyone that where they are is ok. Parents who refuse to discipline their children when it's needed don't really love their children so much as they love the vain philosophies of this fallen world.

Love also vehemently warns of a washed out bridge ahead. Good job MM.

 

[Musicmaster]

As an atheist, I wonder if Gary himself had 'considered all possibilities' concerning the existence of God. Had he truly explored and closely examined all the possible variables, or was his a priori rejection based on his previous worldview? pot/kettle.

CN, no. Gary has never given me reason to believe that he ever studied about the known archaeological evidence, as well as the historical evidences, in support of the integrity of the Bible. He would likely write all that off as not being acceptable evidence. Given any subjective standard for proof, that guarantees that nobody will ever have anything they can lob up over the bar of his acceptance. He's like the event workers who would move the bar up as the high jumper launches into the air, raising it to such heights that no human could possibly get up over the bar without hitting it and knocking it off. Nobody gets the gold, silver or bronze except him.

The other person is a woman who calls herself Nan.

 

[Siloam]

I would point out that none come to Christ unless the Spirit leads him.

You can discuss with rational points and observations for or against, but in the end, without the leading of the Spirit, no explanation will be enough, even if from a believer's standpoint, none is required.

I have had many conversations with non-believers. Many are not atheists, but worship other gods in other ways. I worked with Sikhs, Moslems of many stripes, even Wiccans, as well as those who worship their particular field of study, or their organization, etc.

The soul will worship something, even if it is only their own thoughts.

A fruitful conversation is one that leaves the Spirit something to work with, even if you do not personally observe success.

 

[Musicmaster]

I would point out that none come to Christ unless the Spirit leads him.

You can discuss with rational points and observations for or against, but in the end, without the leading of the Spirit, no explanation will be enough, even if from a believer's standpoint, none is required.

I have had many conversations with non-believers. Many are not atheists, but worship other gods in other ways. I worked with Sikhs, Moslems of many stripes, even Wiccans, as well as those who worship their particular field of study, or their organization, etc.

The soul will worship something, even if it is only their own thoughts.

A fruitful conversation is one that leaves the Spirit something to work with, even if you do not personally observe success.

Absolutely, Siloam. That last sentence is the key. My first desire, above all else, is that the Lord is glorified. My intent is to first tear down their illusions that they were ever once true believers. They think that they were, and I've been assaulting their beliefs about their own pasts in the hopes that they might, just maybe, one day, think back on all this and think that it would be worth going over again, and testing the waters to see if there might be something to it all.

THAT is the door I hope to crack open, even if just a little bit for now. If by doubting themselves now, the Spirit will have more to work with in their lives if the Lord so desires. They've been put on alert that they clearly had no genuine, abiding faith in the real Lord. They consider themselves rational, and I've just demonstrated that they clearly are not. The emotionalism that they misrepresent as rational can now be seen for what it is, and boy do they hate it.

To me, every life is precious as a creation of God. He died for the whole world, and I want to reach as much of it as I can.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Gary, If eye witness evidence is acceptable in courts of law, but not in science, what does that say? To answer that, we must first admit that science says nothing. It's a methodology, and varying degrees of skeptics within any field that applies the rules for science, especially in a subjective manner as do evolutionists, can and do call anything and everything into question that don't happen to jive with the skeptic's personal bias.

Look at you, Gary...you accept the testimony of evolutionists who have produced no evidence by having discovered even one transitional form within the vast array of fossils in all the fossil record, in any strata of rock, from Trilobites to humans, but, oh, you've swallowed it all, and without proof.

Frankly, when you sit there, claiming that I'm the one being irrational, that's an empty claim. Please don't be bitter that I'm pointing this out. You're a man of faith just as I am. Your religion believes in what should be detectable in nature, but simply isn't there. No force in nature has yet been found that can arrange subatomic particles into complex structures based upon massive amounts if information that nature does not and cannot produce randomly. It's unicorns and gnomes running about, doing the impossible.

I on the other hand believe in Christ Jesus by way of experiential relationship that, although equally escapes an ability on my part, or anyone else part, to provide physical evidence of the spiritual, and yet I'm more grounded than you since you have nothing out there in the cosmos at which you can point for your magical force. You COULD experience the reality of Christ if only you had ever been a true believer, but, Gary, you never did get there. You pulled back at some point that only you can testify.

You see, I think you would never have walked away from an experience with the REAL Christ Jesus had you ever had it, and then turn around and declare his non-existence. That's a rational observation, is it not? If that's irrational, then please explain why.

Therein is the reason I call into doubt that you and Nan ever had that depth of relationship with Christ Jesus. You're both reasonable at some level, and would not deny what you personally experienced.

Now, however, you both want PHYSICAL evidence of He who is not bound nor defined by the physical. When you're feeling sad inside, you can't show me physical evidence of it. All you can do is exhibit the outward appearance of an inner experience that you would never claim doesn't exist. Sadness does exist. It's experiential to us all. I simply have to take your word for it. That's the nature of the unseen, and yet you think you're being rational by demanding evidence that you know good and well could not be provided at the level you demand. Experience with Christ goes FAR beyond our mere emotions.

So, please spare us all the sheer nonsense of you thinking you've got the upper hand. You two clearly are not willing to explore Christ's reality in your adulthood years. Pointing back at when you were nine years old...no. Children don't have the depths of understanding that YOU should have right now. I'm not so stupid to demand of you that you prove to me any inner thought, sensory feeling or anything else that is immaterial, and therefore beyond physical proof that you cannot produce for me of what you harbor internally. So, why would you play stupid when we both know you're not. This is more of a silly game to you, which is characteristic of most atheists I have ever encountered. Trying to place upon the shoulders of another your own burden for proof is nothing more than what we see bullies trying to foist upon their victims. It's simply not going to work with me.

Now can you be more rational, or are you going to continue with your silly games?

 

[Siloam]

Look at you, Gary...you accept the testimony of evolutionists who have produced no evidence by having discovered even one transitional form within the vast array of fossils in all the fossil record, in any strata of rock, from Trilobites to humans, but, oh, you've swallowed it all, and without proof.

???!!!!???? No transitional forms?

You can only state that if you refuse to look for them, or refuse to acknowledge them when found!

My favorite example is the development of the horse, which has a particularly complete linear developmental record. Here is a much abbreviated condensation: Evolution of the modern horse.

Wikipedia has a page on transitional fossils: Wikipedia List of Transitional Fossils

You can accept (or reject) the data as you feel led, but pick your arguments better.

As far as observing speciation, using the definitions of species I learned in high school (circa 1970), we had already observed it in single celled organisms, we observed it in plants by the end of the 1980's, and we have potentially observed it in higher animals, though analyses and data is not in. Thumbnail description is a single species showing variation throughout its range is kept within genetic bounds by inter-breeding. Something like a volcano sterilizes the area, cutting off one end from the other so there is no interbreeding (all it takes is one generation). The two populations cannot successfully inter-breed and become two species, each reacting to the larger ecosystem separately. There are still studies going on analyzing the effects of Mt St Helens, with several promising candidates, but it is exceedingly difficult to make sure that all criteria have been met.

The universe, including our world and the natural environment are an expression and signpost to God's nature. He cannot teach us anything whether if we refuse to accept what He put for us to learn about Him. Sometimes we must acknowledge that what we thought He was saying in either general revelation (His natural world) or special revelation (His Word) was not at all what He was telling us. In the end they will both be seen to be True and Consistent.

Out witness to the unbeliever should not turn on such trivia. It impedes many from considering man's sin and Christ's redemption of us.

 

[Musicmaster]

Pick my arguments? (sigh) Ok, let's look at this from a number of your own evolutionists:

Harvard evolutionist, Stephen Jay Gould: “I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record.” (Stephen Jay Gould; The Ediacaran Experiment)

Paleontologist David Kitts: “The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of the Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories and even ahistorical theories.” (David B Kitts; Search for the Holy Transformation)

“Evolution, at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer.“ (David B. Kitts; Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory)

“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information — what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.” (David. M. Raup; Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology)

“In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found–yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.” (David M. Raup; Evolution, and the Fossil Record)

“This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists.” (George Gaylord Simpson; Tempo and Mode in Evolution)

“Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study.” (Stephen Jay Gould; The Panda’s Thumb)

“But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.” (David S. Woodruff; Evolution: The Paleobiological View)

“the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.” (Steven M. Stanley; The New Evolutionary Timetable)

The late Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History wrote concerning the lack of transition species in his book “Evolution”:

“About the lack of direct illustrations in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them…..I will lay it on the line–there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.” (Colin Patterson; Evolution)

“In that great window to the past–the fossil record–we only find distinct plant and animal kinds, with no transitional forms. With the exception of creatures that have become extinct…. ALL life forms found in the fossils are just like those presently alive! To say it again: All non-extinct plant and animal fossils are the same as creatures now alive on the earth. There is NO evidence of evolution in the fossils.” (Evolution Facts.org)

I've seen some in that field also claim they see transitional forms all over the place. Who ya gonna believe? We can probably do the tit for tat, back and forth thing, but in the end, when I looked for images of the alleged transitional forms, they had nothing to offer to us anywhere I could find. I consider it significant that these evolutionists are admitting the lack of evidence, contrary to some others.

So, how did you arrive at the side that you picked?

MM

 

[alxb0521]

Hi, I also discussed with many atheists and I was an atheist too.

I agree, all the discussions with atheists are probably pointless, because God needs to "draw" a person to Him through His Spirit. However, one also needs to consider: it is a decision of a person to accept a lie or the truth (They do not have "love for the truth").
Also, atheism is to my observation the(!) biggest ideological system of Satan presently, which is extremely successful, and which is growing for ca. 100 years and is still(!) growing. Please do not underestimate the power of this lie. It is probably the biggest deception system and ideology of all mankind, yet (of course). (As we know the greatest deception system of all ages will come with the Antichrist.)

alxb

 

[crossnote]

My favorite example is the development of the horse, which has a particularly complete linear developmental record. Here is a much abbreviated condensation: Evolution of the modern horse.

Wikipedia has a page on transitional fossils: Wikipedia List of Transitional Fossils

You can accept (or reject) the data as you feel led, but pick your arguments better.

To believe the 'data' in these two sources, I would have to assign Gen chps. 1-3 and Romans 5 to the dustbin of myth or at best of heresy. As a Christian guided by the plain meaning of God's Word, those two articles would make a better fit.

 

[Musicmaster]

Hi, I also discussed with many atheists and I was an atheist too.

I agree, all the discussions with atheists are probably pointless, because God needs to "draw" a person to Him through His Spirit. However, one also needs to consider: it is a decision of a person to accept a lie or the truth (They do not have "love for the truth").
Also, atheism is to my observation the(!) biggest ideological system of Satan presently, which is extremely successful, and which is growing for ca. 100 years and is still(!) growing. Please do not underestimate the power of this lie. It is probably the biggest deception system and ideology of all mankind, yet (of course). (As we know the greatest deception system of all ages will come with the Antichrist.)

alxb

I fully agree with you. Although my past didn't really involve atheism, per se, my journey through the myriads of belief systems, and finally studying the integrity of the Bible, it was an interesting one. The Lord used all that to get me to the point that I was ready for His work in my heart.

Blessings to you and yours.

MM

 

[Siloam]

Large sigh...

I am not debating theories here. There is no reason why anyone here should believe anything based on what someone calling himself Siloam thinks!

I am simply trying to point out that to hang ones witness of Christ and salvation on a contentious issue where both Christians and non believers have differing views and contrasting evidence does little to advance His cause. Whatever side you advance, there will be an enormous amount of other sources on both sides of whatever issue there is. Your sources may indeed convince you, but you cannot pick where the non-believer places his reliance. You are relying on your personal abilities much more than the Spirit's around an issue the enemy uses to distract the unsaved from the real issue. This works the enemies will regardless of who is correct.

The issue with a non believer is always his relati0onship to God and how Christ addresses it.

Theological/Spiritual debates need to be kept between believers.

To believe the 'data' in these two sources, I would have to assign Gen chps. 1-3 and Romans 5 to the dustbin of myth or at best of heresy. As a Christian guided by the plain meaning of God's Word, those two articles would make a better fit.

Not really, it could be a problem with interpretation and/or application. The Jewish priests rejected Jesus as a heretic because He was contrary to their expectations. It was not a problem with the prophets, but a problem with understanding and application.

A doubter convinced against his will remains a doubter still.

 

[Musicmaster]

Large sigh...

I am not debating theories here. There is no reason why anyone here should believe anything based on what someone calling himself Siloam thinks!

I am simply trying to point out that to hang ones witness of Christ and salvation on a contentious issue where both Christians and non believers have differing views and contrasting evidence does little to advance His cause. Whatever side you advance, there will be an enormous amount of other sources on both sides of whatever issue there is. Your sources may indeed convince you, but you cannot pick where the non-believer places his reliance. You are relying on your personal abilities much more than the Spirit's around an issue the enemy uses to distract the unsaved from the real issue. This works the enemies will regardless of who is correct.

The issue with a non believer is always his relati0onship to God and how Christ addresses it.

Theological/Spiritual debates need to be kept between believers.


Not really, it could be a problem with interpretation and/or application. The Jewish priests rejected Jesus as a heretic because He was contrary to their expectations. It was not a problem with the prophets, but a problem with understanding and application.

A doubter convinced against his will remains a doubter still.

Siloam, the Lord uses many people in countless ways, and so if the Lord uses what I said to those people, then He will empower the words and His Spirit to bring them to where He wants...if that is His will. I don't buy into the idea that there is a singular rule for dealing with atheists and such. I can't explain why the Lord inspired me with what I write to them. That stuff was never in my mind until I ran across them. Many things flooded my mind. Generally, I don't like debating atheists, but this was different...in ways I can't explain.

Perhaps these are not approaches you would have used from behind a set of personal rules and standards, but this is what I was motivated to address with these particular people. The inspiration has run out for at this time. Perhaps I have cracked the door open some for someone else to come along and shatter, but ultimately, they will make up their own minds.

Granted, they were already fully responsible for the decision they had made up to this point and beyond, but I did not sit by idly, having given them up to whatever fate came their way. The Lord can and does use our efforts to reach others, no matter where they are in the walk of life. I've heard it said that even at the Great White Throne judgment, many will still shake their fists at God in hatred. I don't know how much truth there is in that, but what I DO know is that every knee will bow and confess Christ Lord.

Perhaps my sharing with them has compounded their torment if that's where they end up, but they have only themselves to blame.

Ezekiel 3:16-19

16 And it came to pass at the end of seven days, that the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
17 Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me.
18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked [man] shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

The context of the above is specifically aimed at Israel, but like so many other principles in scripture, it has universal application as well. The Church is the "watchman" of the unsaved. Storing up treasure in Heaven is an activity I'm enjoying more and more, and the more people I take there with me by way of the completed work Christ did on that cross for us all, the better.

MM

 

[crossnote]

Not really, it could be a problem with interpretation and/or application. The Jewish priests rejected Jesus as a heretic because He was contrary to their expectations. It was not a problem with the prophets, but a problem with understanding and application.

Interpretation...or better compromise of God's Word in order for our faith to have respectability amongst the 'intelligensia' of this world. That would be no different than the techniques the Church growth crowd uses to make the Church palatable amongst the unsaved.
I did say 'the plain meaning of God's Word' e.g. evening and morning, one day. (As a Christian, I must reject the 'millions/billions of years' scenario.)
Or,
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—
(Rom 5:12)
How could there be an evolutionary cycle of graduated forms without sin, and thus the introduction of death by the first man Adam?

I do somewhat agree with you concerning witnessing to atheists, that evolution is not the way to go, but sometimes it helps to do a bit of preparatory work in removing the atheist's false foundations, (I prefer to show them the illogicalness of their position,) before confronting them with their moral dilemma. (Some are better at debating the scientific aspect.)