Logical Proof of Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Ypostelnik / Yomen joined on 11 June, initiated this thread the same day, posted an inconsequential acknowledgement, and has not posted again.I followed the forum a few years back (and see some of the same major players) and found that the believers would post their theories, get blown away, and never mount a reasonable defense of the position.Rather than facing that, examining it, and engaging in a rational discussion, they drop the conversation, pretend it did not happen and continue to espouse their nonsense as though the conversation had never taken place. They totally ignore the fact that their positions cannot withstand scrutiny, and continue to preach their falsehoods.To me, this is not only hypocrisy, but outright deceitful behavior, both to everyone around them, and to themselves.In a purely logical sense, that is their problem and not mine. I am far better off letting them behave neurotically and just go about my business.However, and this is a big one, people like him continue to force their beliefs on the remainder of society. Might does not make right. There are enough of them to institute and carry out their wishes. That makes it rather difficult to atheists and other, shall I say, believers of a lesser degree, to ignore them and continue our lives. We are daily forced to confront their beliefs, while they refuse to acknowledge the deficits of those beliefs.This rant might be taken as a personal attack. I believe that Yomen will not return, will not read this, and as such it is not directed at him personally. But it is directed at that genre of behavior.I wish I knew how to deal with this. I feel that no one does have an effective method of dealing with this behavior. What can be done?Edit: I don't like my term "believers of a lesser degree." The intent is belivers who follow their belief but don't try to cram it down others throats. How would you say that politely and succintly?Edited by jag, : Clarify a term that looks bad

quote:

---

But evolution’s not a fact. It’s a theory. And it’s one that mandates that life started from non-life, which is unattainable.

---

Let us reduce the arguments to one or two simple items at a time. Start with the second sentence in the quote.Point 1Over and over and over, evolutionists and scientists have stated that evolution is not concerned with the transition from non-life to life. I must say it again, scientific documents are chock full of statements to this effect. There is no reputable scientist that claims evolution demonstrates or covers the beginning of life. With all this evidence, to espouse that last statement in the quote borders the realm of dishonesty. I ask you to accept the point that the theory of evolution does not address the very beginning of life.Point 2What is this evolution theory that you claim is false?Begin with the very basic definition of evolution. It is change over time. That is it. There is nothing more.Now apply the word evolution to biology. It means that inheritable characteristics change over time. That is it. There is nothing more. It does not say start with a pile of bacteria and 3 billion years later you have sentient being. It does not say that. If you disagree, find some “reputable” articles by scientists and academics and present them.Proof of biological evolution. In this world today there are more breeds of cats and dogs that there were, say ten or fifty years ago. The new animals have different characteristics. Some are larger, smaller, hairier, less hairy, longer snouts, shorter snouts, tight skin, baggy skin, etc etc. Their characteristics are inheritable and breed true. They do not just pop up in one generation.These cats and dogs have evolved to survive in their environment. They exemplify evolution. It is proven that species change characteristics.That is what evolution is. It is nothing more than that. It seen to happen before your very eyes.So, what have I said here that you believe to be incorrect? Go to the core of the discussion as I have with you.

Ypostelnik,
I respectfully state that you are not knowledgeable in the theory of evolution. Your statement about spontaneous happenings, coincidence, and reptiles converting to mammal are just flat out incorrect. I do not state this in a derogatory manner. But it is clear to all.Evolution deals with changing characteristics of living things. Biogenesis is concerned with the beginnings of life. These are separate fields of study. It does not matter that Darwin or any particular person combined them. They are now separate. Darwin started the investigation into evolution (though there were others at the same time) in the mid 1800s. There were so many things he could not have possibly known. We cannot demand that every word he wrote be absolutely correct.When we are faced with complex problems or questions, a primary path to understanding them is to break the problems into smaller pieces. Then each piece has fewer unknowns to deal with. Then we can start working on those unknowns and see what we come up with. Evolution and biogenesis are separate fields.I presented this point in the post to which you responded. Are you saying you cannot accept the separation of evolution from biogenesis?Then I provided an explanation of what the theory of evolution really is, and evidence that you can see it right before your very eyes.You ignored my questions and continue on with your outright incorrect statements about evolution.This is one of the biggest problems in the discussion between religious beliefs and other. Those supporting the religions beliefs hear and see the arguments, fail to respond to them, and continue spouting opinions that have been shown to be incorrect. They, and you, simply ignore the facts, offer no valid support for your position, yet demand that the remainder of the world live by your beliefs.I request that you return to my previous post and address the two points I made. I further request that you address them simply, concisely without adding anything in that is not specifically in each point. If you want to broaden or redirect the scope, you can always make another post.Before closing, I’ll throw in a bit of psychology, directed to all posters. No one can make you angry but yourself. When someone sends you a flame, you decide if you want to get angry or not. It is your decision. Respond to flames and insults rationally by noting that it is a flame and optionally addressing the points. Or simply ignore it. Again, that is your choice.

Good post Rahvin.ypostelnik had his theories shot down and blown away from the first response, yet he plowed ahead as though he had won every dispute. This would not be so bad except that people like him are in the majority. They refuse to face up to valid arguments that blow their pet beliefs in the weeds, then ignore the facts, claim victory, and work to establish laws to force everyone to live by their false beliefs.Under King Bush and Emperor Cheney, (just in case, with more than a little sarcasm), the religious right has gained more power and authority. However, as people begin to realize what a total disaster King Bush has been, (yes, even some religious zealots are realizing this) some of the country has been figuring things out and maybe the religious right is loosing some of its power base. We can only hope.In the meantime, as I posted in another thread, how can we deal with these people? I just don’t know.

I wish to bring this up once more and see if we can make some progress as a result of this thread. ypostelnik came in throwing his BS all over the place and was soundly trounced. He ignored all the facts, probably did not chase down one single link, probably did not look at the videos (rat, who posted those), but is still personally convinced his position is correct.We all know that there are many people of this nature, enough to badly distort the paths we take in our political lives. As ypostelnik has shown, they cannot be debated as they will not listen. The more wrong they are, the louder they scream, and tighter they close their brains to reason.Why do the brains of otherwise obviously intelligent people simply turn to mush when it comes to religion? (Well, not all are intelligent, but you get the point.)How can we deal with these people?

{Earlier version of message 72. Content "hidden". - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

{Earlier version of message 72. Content "hidden". - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

Hello ypostelnik,No, I don’t think you did come here to debate, just to state your opinions. As I may be wrong, lets try this.In message 42 of this thread I wrote about the difference between theory of evolution and Abiogenesis. I made the point that the two are separate. I cannot prove that no reputable scientists claims they are, but I am quite certain that is the case. (It is difficult to prove the negative) As you think they are, then I ask you to provide that evidence.I asked you to respond to my explanation in two posts and you ignored me.I then followed up and gave an example of evolution in progress before your very eyes. There are new species of cats and dogs that did not exist fifty years ago. That indeed fits the theory of evolution. It proves it. Animals can change characteristics over time. Again, that is all the theory of evolution says. It does not say that you can start with a pile of bacteria and 3 billion years later you have a sentient being.And BTW: I read the post here:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://creationistsearcher.wordpress.com/2008/06/11/yomin-postelnik-debates-with-atheists/You did the same thing there you have done here. Your responders wrote back and justified their position and gave your verifiable information. You keep repeating your opinion and provide no evidence what so ever to support your position. Your opinion is not evidence. Please be certain you understand that last statement. Your opinion is not evidence.I asked you to comment on abiogenisis and my evidence of evolution in fact. You ignored the questions. Here is your chance again. Please respond to those two points.

Interesting links Brian. Thanks.
YP has a bosom buddy here at EvCForum, Catholic Scientist. The both of them are outright trolls. Their answers so flagrantly disregard reality that the behavior is down right dishonest, and fundamentally immoral. Yet they continue to scream their indignation. One might be well justified to call them downright evil.M. Scott Peck, MD, famous in psychology, wrote a book about these kinds of people. “People of the Lie” The title says it all, its rather old, but a good read.I guess it’s a side effect from freedom of speech that we cannot tie the jerks down and make them face the questions that they won’t.We need to learn to deal with them without letting them get us angry. That gives them control over us.This needs to be said again. Rational people need to develop a method of dealing with these people. It has often been said that attaching a name to something provides a handle that we can use to understand and possibly control it. Do we have a legitimate name that we can use in public for people like YP and CS? Does anyone have any suggestions as to how we can deal with them? How would you (anyone) initiate a thread along these lines?

BTW: Is anyone else have difficulties posting. A short post may take three minutes to complete, and often times out before completing.admin@I think I have sent them four emails over the last week. Maybe if more send in their comments.