Atheism is more probable than Christianity

First off, my opponent is right that IF THERE WERE CONTRADICTIONS, then the Bible would not be the Word of God. However, he has to prove there are contradictions first, BUT the discrepancies he's mentioned, can be easily reconciled. Let me explain: Pro said, "Abiathar Mark 2:25-26, KJV 25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? 26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? There are two major problems with this: first, it was Ahimelech who was the high priest and secondly, it was perfectly lawful for David to eat the bread![4] A-2-2. Ahimelech Here is what it says in 1 Samuel: 1 Samuel 21:1 21 Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why art thou alone, and no man with thee?" This can be easily reconciled. Observe: First of all it is important to notice that Mark does not say that David went to Abiathar the high priest, it says he went to the house of God "in the days of Abiathar the high priest." So, now the question becomes, why does it say "the days of Abiathar the high priest" when clearly Ahimelech was the priest at that time (1 Sam. 21:1)? After a careful reading of the account of David and his men eating the shewbread in 1 Samuel 21 - 22, we simply find that there were multiple priests. In fact there were at least 86 priests in the days of "Abiathar the high priest" (1 Sam. 22:18)! Once Saul learned that Ahimelech helped David, he commanded Doeg to kill Ahimelech and his entire family (1 Sam. 22:18-19), leaving alive only one of his sons, Abiathar the priest (1 Sam. 22:19, 23:9), who managed to escape. So, now that we see there were multiple priests during that time, the question then becomes, "Why does Mark refer to Abiathar as the high priest? Wouldn't Ahimelech have been the high priest at that time?" Not necessarily. Notice in Leviticus 21:10 how the high priest is defined as the one who has the annointing oil poured on his head and "is consecrated to put on the garments." Now look carefully at the wording of 1 Sam 22:18: "And the king said to Doeg, Turn thou, and fall upon the priests. And Doeg the Edomite turned, and he fell upon the priests, and slew on that day fourscore and five persons that DID WEAR A LINEN EPHOD. If that isn't enough evidence, notice how there are MULTIPLE HIGH PRIESTS even at the time of Jesus Christ in Luke 3:2: "Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests..." After carefully studying the account in 1 Samuel, we see that Mark is perfectly correct in saying that David went to the house of God "in the days of Abiathar the high priest." This is not a contradiction. Pro said, " By Chapter 11, we come to the last week of Jesus' life. Because the action moves so quickly and we are told that many of his events happened "eutheōs", we therefore get the impression that Jesus' ministry lasted only a few months." This is not ad hominem, but that is one of the lamest "contradictions" I have ever heard. My opponent gave the answer already. Pro said, " By Chapter 11, we come to the last week of Jesus' life. Because the action moves so quickly and we are told that many of his events happened "eutheōs." Notice it was the last week of Jesus' life! His ministry has already been going on for 3 years! THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION. Pro is arguing that Moses couldn't have written about Dan since it hadn't been founded by Dan yet in Gen 14. There is an easy answer. Since Deuteronomy 34:1 has the word "Dan" in it again, and this time it's apparent that the writer has to outlive Moses(Moses dies in Deut 34), the MOST REASONABLE EXPLANATION IS THAT God told JOSHUA to put the word in to fit the account in Genesis 14. After all, Joshua is also given a copy of the Mosaic writings in Joshua 1:8, and MOSES IS TOLD TO REPEAT TO JOSHUA THE WRITINGS OF THIS BOOK(Exodus 17:14). Further, Joshua has the authority which God gave to Moses(Deut 34:9). Pro said, " Isn't it bizarre why God would let such an important matter of faith be dependent upon the place and time of one's birth? The fact is, atheism better explains these demographics. If God does not exist, then religions are but elaborate social constructions. Therefore, we would expect the demographics to vary based upon culture and time." Has my opponent forgotten that the entire Book of Acts is basically the start of Christian Missionaries? Does he not realize what Jesus told the Apostles in Acts 1:8: But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: AND YE SHALL BE WITNESSES UNTO ME IN JERUSALEM, AND IN ALL JUDEA, AND IN SAMARIA, AND UNTO THE UTTERMOST PART OF THE EARTH. God did not make faith dependent upon one's location. There are missionaries ALL OVER THIS WORLD. Now I wold like to mention some problems with evolution, as that would make Theism more probable than Atheism. Observe: 1. Apes and Monkeys survive ALL the Transitional Forms(Ape-men). That's rather odd. Why can the monkeys survive, but the transitional forms cannot? 2. The lowest type of man feels the necessity of paying for his sins, and worshipping a Supreme Being, while the highest type of animal feels no remorse about killing a man and eating him. If we are kin to the animals(evolution), then why is there no similar spiritual structure. 3. Where do the "sexes" come from? One celled animals don't have any sex and NEVER DEVELOP any sex. A sexless being cannot automatically develop into a Bi-sexual being. Sexless one-celled animals never develop into two-celled "sexed" animals by themselves, under variations ofheat, or pressure, or moisture. 4. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. How then, did the Big Bang get enough energy to cause an explosion? People do not evolve, they die. Nature does not improve, communications and transportations do not evolve, they are worked upon by an "intelligent designer." Inventions do not evolve, they are created. The Universe is not integrating, its exploding outward. Everything you can observe by FACT(science) DECAYS OVER TIME, IT DOES NOT EVOLVE! 5. The Moon moves away from the Earth 2 inches every year. If the earth is 4 billion years old, why is the Moon still in sight? Further, the Moon would have been hitting the earth 4 billion years ago, and have broken apart later. Why isn't there a Moon sized crater in the earth then? 6. Mules CANNOT reproduce. A mule is the offspring of a donkey and a horse. Its a genetic mutation and it cannot have offspring. So, how can one species evolve into another species if the offspring of one species cannot reproduce? 7. Demographics further weakens evolution. How? "If man has been here one million years, increasing at half a percent yearly(that accounts for war, famine, plague, etc), with less than 3 children per family, the present population would be 10 billion people per square inch of the world's suface"(Peter Ruckman). Listen, Friend, if evolution were true you would have PEOPLE STANDING ON TOP OF EACH THER HALFWAY UP TO THE MOON. Sources 1. http://www.thywordistrue.com... 2. Evolution DVD, Bible Baptist Bookstore 3. Commentary on Genesis, Peter Ruckman