It seems to me that the position all thinking atheists have to start from is one of reason and rationality; 'If you want me to believe then show me the evidence.' An unavoidable consequence of this is that when defending their views atheists must base their arguments on reason and logic, whether defending their own views or attacking the views of others.
Perhaps that is why this thread will never result in a meeting of minds. Fundamentalist Christians reject, either implicitly or explicitly, the force of any any argument based solely on reason. This does not stop them from deploying apparently science-based arguments when to do so may appear to give them credibility - nor to employ apparently rational arguments which require close examination if their flaws are to be revealed.

With regard to Jack's rejection of Law I would be interested to read any examples to back up his opinion - without these his opinion lacks any claim to justification.