User talk:Alisyd

You may find it informative to read radiometric dating. Dan Watts 12:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of atheism

 * (This discussion, between Alisyd and several other editors, has been moved here from Talk:Atheism because it does not directly concern Wikipedia or its articles. Please feel free to continue the debate here.)

There is mention of the argument about "to know there is no God, I must know everything at once."(summary of the general idea) This is true, but then this belief can only be agnosticism as an atheist can not make a definite claim there is no God without a leap of faith. e.g. I can not prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist. I however, do not believe that it exists, so I believe it does not exist.(The two statements are synonymous) I can not know for certain whether it exists or not. This is the same thing as agnosticism in the case of God. Alisyd 16:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't this the difference between 'strong' atheism, and 'weak' atheism (which could also be called agnosticism)? Jefffire 16:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the weak and strong atheisms. Logically, how can you not believe something exists without believing it doesn't exist? If I don't believe dogs have five legs, doesn't that mean I don't believe in five-legged dogs? Can someone explain that to me please? Alisyd 21:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The difference between strong and weak atheism is primarily whether you view your atheism as (A) the assertion "there is no God", or (B) as the lack of acceptance of the assertion "there is a God". While a strong atheist would accept both A and B, a weak atheist would only accept B. However, I agree with you that the distinction is trivial and has more to do with semantics and one's definition of "belief", etc. than with one's actual views regarding the existence of deities. If one person says "I don't believe that Santa Claus exists" and another person says "I believe that Santa Claus doesn't exist", the two people are essentially saying the same thing, just with a different sentence structure; artificially trying to subdivide the two statements as signifying different beliefs is confusing, and distracts from the real debate.
 * "This is true, but then this belief can only be agnosticism as an atheist can not make a definite claim there is no God without a leap of faith." - This is untrue. Does it take a leap of faith to state "There is no Santa Claus"? No, it just takes the lack of a leap of faith that Santa does exist, and the willingness to express that lack of belief in the simplest and most direct way possible. On the other hand, if someone said "I am 100% certain that Santa Claus does not exist", that person would be taking a leap of faith, because there is so little in this world that is truly 100% certain; Santa Claus could exist, he just very, very likely doesn't, and "I don't believe Santa Claus exists"/"I believe that Santa Claus doesn't exist" are both just shorthand ways of expressing that thought in a concise and meaningful way. So, just as the utter lack of evidence for Santa Claus's existence is sufficient grounds to safely and reasonably make the statement "Santa Claus doesn't exist" (at least until contradictory evidence arises in the future), if one believes that there is a similar lack of evidence for God's existence, one can, without any real leap of faith, say "God doesn't exist", which is shorthand for "Based on the evidence thus far gathered, it is extremely likely that God does not exist". -Silence 22:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that you said "if one believes that there is a similar lack of evidence for God's existence, one can, without any 'real' leap of faith say "God doesn't exist."". Essentially, then they believe something. Every time I have heard someone say they believe something, it requires faith. Faith is found in every religion and is necessary to religion. So then by your definition, atheism is a religion. Is that what you meant?Alisyd 00:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "Essentially, then they believe something." - Correct. That's how I prefer to word it, anyway; I don't see having beliefs as a bad thing, or as making your views any more or less valid or evidence-supported. Just read the entry for the transitive verb "to believe" at dictionary.com, with meanings such as "To accept as true or real" and "To expect or suppose; think". If I used some loaded synonym, like "if one acknowledges that there is a similar lack of evidence", it wouldn't make any substantial difference, only a rhetorical one. I prefer not to play games. Belief can be based on personal convictions, or it can be based on solid observational evidence, or it can be based on nothing at all; it's just whatever people currently accept as true or real.
 * "Every time I have heard someone say they believe something, it requires faith." - That depends on how you define "faith". If you define "faith" as simply "accepting something as true that is not 100% definitely true", then everything in life requires some degree of "faith", because a certain number of assumptions are required to not be a complete solipsist, to accept that anything in life is remotely reliable. The only difference between religion and science is that the leaps of faith religion take tend to be more arbitrary, based on emotion, appeals to authority, and what "sounds nicest" rather than on reproducible observational evidence and similarly objective criteria. But there's still no absolute knowledge, in any field; there's only, at best, knowledge that is extremely likely, or more abstract statements that are "true by definition" (such as much of the field of mathematics). If, however, you are defining "faith" as "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." or any of a number of other definitions, which it sounds like you are trying to suggest, then you are completely incorrect and we are simply using different definitions of the word to believe. So, if you prefer, replace all instances of believe with accepts as being extremely likely to be true or similar, so as to avoid silly semantic misunderstandings.
 * "Faith is found in every religion and is necessary to religion." - Correct. And assumptions are necessary to life itself; since you are apparently using "faith" to mean "assumptions without a high degree of observational support", my definition of belief has nothing whatsoever to do with your definition of faith. Instead, it has a lot to do with assumptions, and assumptions can either be completely unjustified or extraordinarily justified; that gravity exists is an "assumption", but one that is enormously supported by our knowledge of the world, and therefore it requires more "faith" (unsupported or unverifiable assumptions) to reject gravity than to accept it.
 * "So then by your definition, atheism is a religion." - False, and false to the point of absurdity. By your misunderstanding of the verb believe, coupled with a complete ignorance of the meaning of everything I said in my previous comment, atheism is a religion. :) And, for that matter, so is everything else in life, since if one believes nothing, then one doesn't think that anything is true (or highly likely to be true), which is logically impossible and practically useless. If you prefer to use an alternate definition of "believing", then use it; don't use rhetorical word games to try to redefine the English language.
 * "Is that what you meant?" - No. :) I recommend rereading my entire above comment and then replying again. After reading dictionary.com, too. And now, I believe it's getting late, and I believe that I am hungry, so I believe I must be going. Toodles. :) -Silence 00:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Furthermore: even if we were using the same word definitions, "Faith is found in every religion and is necessary to religion. So then by your definition, atheism is a religion." would still be an enormously fallacious and misleading statement. What you are doing, possibly entirely by accident, is taking various common characteristics of religion, and suddenly jumping to the conclusion that those characteristics are the definition of religion, and that everything with those same characteristics is a "religion", even when it shares none of the other characteristics religions have in common. If the fallaciousness of this idea isn't yet obvious, let me provide an example: "Cells are found in every human and are necessary to humans. You have said that frogs have cells. So by your definition, frogs are humans." Just because humans have cells doesn't mean that everything that has cells is a human; just because religions require faith doesn't mean that everything that requires faith is a religion. For example, since no evidence exists to support the idea that leprechauns exist, ergo someone must take a leap of faith to believe that leprechauns exist; does that make belief in leprechauns a "religion"? No. Religions are not just "anything that involves faith"; there are many other requirements (some of them disputed) for something to be a religion, and atheism doesn't meet a single one of them, just as "frog" doesn't meet any of the requirements for being a human. -Silence 01:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If one wants to define religion as having a deity or deities or belief in something higher, then atheism can not be defined as a religion. However, atheism requires several leaps of faith such as that God does not exist, we came here through natural processes. Any evidence found for these can also be taken as a leap of faith because it requires belief in the evidence, science, and logic. Proofs for the evidence, science, and logic require faith in those proofs. Alisyd 00:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "However, atheism requires several leaps of faith such as that God does not exist," - If believing that God does not exist requires a "leap of faith", then believing that Santa Claus, Batman, leprechauns, or invisible pink unicorns do not exist also requires a "leap of faith". Atheism is no different from aSantaClausism, aBatmanism, aleprechaunism, or ainvisiblepinkunicornism; they require no leap of faith, merely an assumption, based on a complete lack of reliable evidence for something's existence, that that thing very likely does not exist. Sure, it's possible that there really is a Batman or a leprechaun or a Santa Claus or a God out there, but saying "God does not exist" or "Santa Claus does not exist" or "leprechauns do not exist" does not necessarily preclude that possibility; it is merely, as I explained above, colloquial, simplified shorthand for "very likely does not exist". If we were required to add such qualifies as "almost definitely" or "very likely" to everything that wasn't 100% certain, than every sentence anyone ever said (including this one) would require such a qualifier, which is obviously extremely impractical. So, we simply shrink stuff like "because I recently put a sandwich in the refrigerator and am currently looking at what is probably that selfsame sandwich in the refrigerator, therefore it is most likely that there is a sandwich in the refrigerator" to "there's a sandwich in the refrigerator". And we shorten similarly convoluted, elaborate statements of near-certainty to things like "Invisible Pink Unicorns don't exist", even though we can't be absolutely, 100% sure of that. And we can do exactly the same with "gods don't exist"; no leap of faith is required, merely the common-sense process of stating something that is very likely to be true without any qualifiers such as "almost certainly".
 * "we came here through natural processes." - Nor do I see how this is a "leap of faith". What, exactly, are the options aside from "natural" processes? Unnatural processes? There is no evidence that anything exists or has ever existed that is not a part of the natural, phenomenal world, including everything humanity has ever done or created. Factories are not "unnatural", they're just human constructions, no more or less natural than a beaver's dam or an ant's hill. It is no more a leap of faith to assume that natural, rather than unnatural or supernatural, processes are responsible for something occurring in the natural world than it is to assume that a mathematical principle is responsible for a mathematical equation being true, rather than an unmathematical or "supermathematical" one created by God, which violates or "transcends" the laws of mathematics. The expected, ordinary, and obvious answer that's consistent with all known facts and evidence does not require a "leap of faith" to arrive at; the opposite answer, which contradicts known facts and evidence, does. If one defines a "leap of faith" as any conclusion, regardless of the amount of evidence in support of it, then one renders the term "leap of faith" meaningless.
 * "Any evidence found for these can also be taken as a leap of faith because it requires belief in the evidence, science, and logic." - And it seems you've done exactly that. Everything is apparently a leap of faith, by your definition. :) And since you believe that everything that requires a leap of faith is a religion, by your definition, everything is a religion. What a convenient, or at least amusing, definition-play you've fabricated. :) In reality, however, what you define as a "leap of faith" is merely "an assumption", and assumptions are fully justified, and in fact required, in order to live, including even assumptions like "I exist". What matters is that one's assumptions are the most likely ones to be true based on the available evidence. That's what distinguishes "fact" from "fiction": relative probability and likelihood of being true.
 * "Proofs for the evidence, science, and logic require faith in those proofs." - Proofs do not exist in science. They do exist in mathematics, where the only "faith" they require is that one accept the definitions in use, and the necessary implications of those definitions. Your fast and loose play with word definitions seems to be confusing even yourself. -Silence 01:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

All right, I do like to play with words. But I do believe that virtually everything requires belief or faith. I will agree I did not follow the rules of logic when I made my original assumption. i was trying to show atheism is a religion. Atheism is most definitely a worldview, though. It is a worldview which can not account for any set system of morality or order. If our brains evolved from random chance, how can we know that? Can we trust them? Did they evolve in the right way? What does right even mean in that context? Sorry I went off subject there. Atheism is also a dogmatic belief system. All belief systems start with axioms by which are determined to be true without proof and from which other propositions are deduced. Atheist axioms include: the universe has either always existed or came into existence uncaused(who was there to observe this?), non-living matter evolved into living cells by undirected chemistry(who was there to observe this?), complex information arose from simple information(who was there to observe this?), design features arose without a designer(who was there to observe this?), moral sensibilities arose from matter with no concept of morals(who was there to observe this?). These axioms then allow an atheist to look at the evidence and see a billions of years old earth and claim there is no God or no evidence of one. Alisyd 16:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "All right, I do like to play with words. But I do believe that virtually everything requires belief or faith." - On some level, and to some extent, that's true. But the key is to distinguish between things that require only a little faith, and things that require a lot of faith.
 * ''"Atheism is most definitely a worldview, though." - Depends. Atheism is only a worldview if not believing in Santa Claus is a worldview, or not believing that Batman is real is a worldview. So, again, it's a matter of how loose your definitions are, not of anything truly intrinsic to atheism or belief.
 * "It is a worldview which can not account for any set system of morality or order." - Nope. Every atheist in the world has an ordered and moral or ethical code. It's true that "atheism" doesn't preclude any specific morality, anymore than not believing in Santa Claus means that you have to hold a certain ideology, but being an atheist certainly doesn't render one any less able to be a moral being. Most often it just means that one bases one's morality on something other than an appeal to authority (that authority being God) or an appeal to consequences (that consequence being Hell); instead, it often relies on things like compassion and empathy, practicality and usefulness, on helping people for the sake of helping people, not for the sake of pleasing an enigmatic, omnipresent parent-figure.
 * "If our brains evolved from random chance, how can we know that?" - Our brains evolved by random change only as much as anything evolved by random change. Evolution is not a complete crapshoot; traits that are beneficial to an organism are more likely to proliferate and to be passed on to new generations. We can "know" that because we can look at the brains of species closely related to humans, look at fossils of intermediary species, and put the pieces of the puzzles together; see human evolution.
 * "Can we trust them?" - What do you mean by that? We do, and should, trust them as far as we must; the human brain is not perfect, but it's certainly sufficient for our purposes, and there's no real reason to think that we can't "trust" our brain in some way (what would we do if our brains weren't "trustworthy", for that matter?).
 * "Did they evolve in the right way?" - If they didn't, you wouldn't be asking that question right now. There is no "right way" to evolve; there is just ways that are useful towards the situation certain organisms are in, and for the situation we humans are in, our brains are quite satisfactory.
 * "What does right even mean in that context?" - You're the one who asked the question, so you're the one who should define "right" properly. Otherwise, your question is completely meaningless.
 * "Atheism is also a dogmatic belief system." - Incorrect, unless not believing in Santa Claus is also a "dogmatic belief system". You have yet to show in any way how the two are different. Atheism is neither dogmatic nor a belief system; it's just not believing in gods. Nothing more, nothing less.
 * "All belief systems start with axioms by which are determined to be true without proof and from which other propositions are deduced." - Then, if that is the definition you are using, atheism is not a belief system, since most atheists arrive at atheism as the conclusion of seeking the truth, not with the preset assumption that it is. Ironically, the opposite is the case for the overwhelming majority of theists, who are inevitably raised believing in God and then never truly question this assumption.
 * "Atheist axioms include: the universe has either always existed or came into existence uncaused(who was there to observe this?)," - Incorrect. That is not an "atheist axiom"; few, if any, atheists believe that. Most believe that the universe was "caused", in the way you're using the word, by the Big Bang, the most widely-accepted scientific theory about the origin of the universe. Also, your "who was there to observe this?" is a nonsensical question; something does not have to be directly observed for there to be evidence for it, as we can observe the simple available facts to come to the conclusion that the universe began with a single point expanding outwards from a singularity.
 * "non-living matter evolved into living cells by undirected chemistry(who was there to observe this?)," - Incorrect. Firstly, your statement is a distortion; non-living matter developed first into organic molecules, not straight into "cells". The vast majority of people who believe this are not atheists. And again, your "who was there to observe this?" is a fallacious red herring; it requires a leap of faith to assume that something was directed by an intelligence, not to not assume that.
 * "complex information arose from simple information(who was there to observe this?)," - What "information" are you referring to here?
 * "design features arose without a designer(who was there to observe this?)," - I call bullshit. :) You have mentioned no "design features", and you probably deliberately characterize as "design features" things that are near-universally viewed as undesigned traits that evolved naturally. :) So you are deliberately using word games, yet again, and again and again, to try to predispose the debate in your favor. These are all just pure rhetorical tactics; your references are a house of cards. As soon as you're willing to be more specific in your criticisms and analysis, I'll take you more seriously. But for now, all three of the above theories that you state are "articles of faith" of the "religion" atheism not only have absolutely nothing to do with atheism and clearly demonstrate that you understand little about scientific method or the fundamental laws of nature, but also are all things that only became accepted by any people after there the evidence arose suggesting them. Furthermore, all of those theories are things every single person believing them is 100% willing to change if contradicting evidence arises in the future; they are not absolute beliefs or articles of faith, but merely theories about the most likely things to have happened, based solely on the evidence available. The theories are very likely to change in the future based on the new evidence that arises, because they're scientific hypotheses, not pre-assumed beliefs as you falsely claim.
 * "moral sensibilities arose from matter with no concept of morals(who was there to observe this?)." - Again and again you assume that someone had to "be there" for us to have any knowledge about anything whatsoever. By that logic, everything except what you, personally, have seen with your own eyes is total nonsense. No wonder you're such a confused lad. :) If you're genuinely curious about where "moral sensibilities" came from, and aren't just putting on a show, I can gladly explain it to you. Think of a fish. Does a fish know right from wrong? Certainly. A fish knows that it is "wrong" for it to bash its own head into a rush, and "right" to continue to eat and sleep and breathe. A fish knows it is "right" to do things that help it and its family survive and reproduce, and "wrong" to endanger that aim. This "right/wrong" sense, or a very crude "morality", is a direct result of evolutionary processes ensuring that creatures are more likely to survive when they are motivated to do so by impulses telling them what to do and not do. The only real difference between humans and other animals in that respect is that humans have a much, much more complex mind and capacity for abstraction, which allows what was once an extremely simple "x is bad, y is good" instinct to develop into elaborate codes such as legal systems, religious institutions, self-help books, etc. So, there's your answer: things aren't as black-and-white as you want them to be, and there was no point when morality just magically appeared out of nowhere; like so much else in life, it developed slowly, naturally, step by step.
 * "These axioms then allow an atheist to look at the evidence and see a billions of years old earth and claim there is no God or no evidence of one." - Incorrect. None of the aforementioned claims are "axioms"; with the exception of the many strawmen you fabricated above (which are irrelevant here), they were all arrived at solely because they're the most reasonable and likely situations, not because a bunch of people for some arbitrary and nonsensical reason just happened to want to believe a random set of things like that. People don't not believe in God because they hate God; for example, I, personally, don't believe in any afterlife, but one of the things I most wish is that there was an afterlife, even though that would prove me wrong. But because there's no real evidence supporting the belief that there's an afterlife, I can't quite bring myself to believe that just for the sake of my wishful thinking, so I don't. Likewise, most non-religious people who don't bleieve in God don't believe in him for the same reason they don't believe in Santa Claus: because there's no reason to believe in him, because it's more likely that the Big Bang occurred than that some magical guy in the sky created everything (if so, what created him?); it's more likely that life developed through natural processes than that some superman up in the sky, for no apparent reason whatsoever, decided to make life; it's more likely that human morality developed directly out of humanity's natural survival instincts than that it was magically placed there by God for no reason other than to mess with our minds. The problem is that (1) you think you can poke holes in well-established theories through rhetorical tactics alone; you'll need subtantial logic and evidence to do that, my friend; and (2) you assume that if you can find a reason to not accept a specific scientific theory, that means that the only other option is to believe in God. This is obviously patent nonsense: God is a distinct proposition and must be proved in its own right to be believed in on logical or evidential grounds, not merely jumped to arbitrarily as the only other recourse, with no explanation given, when a certain scientific theory is too "icky" for emotional reasons. Try again.
 * And if the earth isn't billions of years old, how fucking old is it? :P -Silence 17:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

All right. I'll try again. Non-living matter evolved into organic molecules into cells. Isn't that abiogenesis? How can non-living matter give birth to living matter? In the atheist system, there is no absolute standard of morality. So then we have relative morals. If someone wants to kill unborn babies who are we to stomp on their right to do that? The human brain is in fact the most complex thing in the entire universe. It has more capacity than any human computer and sends messages up to 300 miles per second to our nerves. The 26 different proteins required for a blood clot. The complexity of tiny cells and DNA. The lung system of birds. All of these I say are design features. If I saw a car which operates according to the laws of physics and chemistry, can I conclude this car arose from random chance. No, I would be laughed out of any institution if I claimed that. Yet, DNA is vastly more complex than all the cars in the world put together and is so small we can't even see it with microscopes.(I am not sure about the accuracy of the microscope part) The scientific method only works on testable and repeatable actions. The origin of life can not be tested or repeated. It was a historical act so one has to take a leap of faith and believe how we got here. The Big Bang is an impossibility because where did all the energy come from? Even if it did happen everything should be dispersed fairly evenly, but everything is just in clumps. The universe is so huge we have no idea where it ends. Who created God is an irrelevant question. All things that have a beginning have a cause. (Hence, the universe has to have a cause, God) God (at least the one I believe in) is eternal and created time so he had no beginning so he does not have a cause or a creator. He is the Creator. I do not believe in God because I have chosen to discard another theory. I believed in God first(my presupposition) and then discredited atheism. Evolution is more random chance than you think. I ask you to name one beneficial mutation that adds more genetic information. In order for evolution to occur, genetic information has to be added. I also find it interesting how the 'proofs' of evolution are constantly changing(e.g. missing links between man and apes keeps becoming some new fossil, embryonic changes(I don't remember the name for this one but it showed how all embryos are essentially the same), peppered moth(which has recently been revealed as a hoax, etc.) I believe the Earth is only around 6000 years like the Bible says it is.(literal interpretation) By the way, I have never known swearing to be civil.(or it could just be my moral standards set by God) 2 Peter 3:3-4: There shall come in the last days scoffers saying "Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep all things continue the same since the beginning of creation." This sounds to me like atheists and uniformitarianism. God predicted there would be those who wouldn't believe his Word. I believe God created man and once man fell, God reached down and saved him. I am uncertain of your beliefs silence, but I would guess you believe we evolved through random chance. 209.145.244.126 00:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This is just a long way of saying that you believe that atheism is irrational. Whether that is so, or not, atheists still exist and atheism is not religion. David D. (Talk) 04:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have faith it is nanoseconds old and we just seem to experience the age ;-) Just out of interest isn't atheism by definition the antithesis of religion? i think you're being trolled here silence. With this kind of logic one could argue that a circle is a square. David D. (Talk) 19:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. If one requires faith to not believe in anything for which there is no evidence, we've wandered into the Theatre of the absurd. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to discuss abiogenesis, you are better off doing it there rather than here. Technically speaking an atheist doesn't necessarily believe in abiogenesis or evolution, he just doesn't believe that a God played a part. More common is that theists may believe in abiogenesis and/or evolution - many theists believe God created the Universe, but then let things happen naturally.


 * There is no absolute standard of morality for theists either. I ask you: Is something good because God says it is good, or does God say it is good because it is good by some other standard? If the latter is true, then you have some other standard just like atheists. If the former is true, then we have the situation where killing unborn babies is right or wrong simply based on what God says, which seems very arbitrary! And furthermore, we have no idea what God says anyway, it is simply people's opinion and interpretation, which again is not absolute.


 * To be honest I find it hard to believe you are not trolling, since you then list just about every flawed "proof" of God and "argument" against evolution, but I will assume good faith. The question of where God came from is just as relevant and valid as asking where the Universe came from. You say "all things that have a beginning have a cause" - firstly, this is untrue; secondly, the Universe's cause could clearly have been something other than God (but which has always existed). Mdwh 23:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that this guy is deliberately trolling; he seems to genuinely not realize the fallacies and misconceptions his arguments are full to the brim with, presumably because he's largely relating arguments he's heard before and hasn't analyzed in-depth. Unfortunately, this is not the place to correct such misunderstandings; clearly this discussion doesn't relate to the Atheism Wikipedia article, so would anyone object if I moved this discussion to the user's Talk page, where it won't interfere with the task of article-editing here?
 * Also, "isn't atheism by definition the antithesis of religion?" - this statement is completely off. The lack of religion is irreligion, and the antithesis is antireligion (cf. theism. atheism, antitheism). There have been many atheistic religions throughout history; Buddhism, for example, has historically been atheistic by default. -Silence 05:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * In that case I'm using antithesis incorrectly, thanks for pointing that out. I had not realised that Buddhism is atheistic, clearly I need to read up on it. David D. (Talk) 15:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, Buddhism's complicated in that respect. Buddhism had traditionally had deities, along with spirits and demons and the like, but never in a central role, and they are not worshipped. A better example of atheistic religions might be animism or Taoism or somesuch. -Silence 15:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Your argument is extremely subjective: "The human brain is in fact the most complex thing in the entire universe", what, more complex than the Sun and stars, galaxies, blackholes? I disagree. "DNA is vastly more complex than all the cars in the world" I do no agree at all, it is currently simply less researched than cars. Also: "All things that have a beginning have a cause." is not strictly true in quantum mechanics and the lack of physics having established a cause for the big band does not imply the existence of a deity, we just simply don't know what cause it yet, maybe tommorrow some scientist will find the awnser. Just like a few hundred years ago when a scientist dicovered the universe doesn't revolve around the earth (a then central pillar of Chritianity). Canderra 13:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I happen to have been gone for a week and away from the computer. i agree my argument is subjective, but you only named three things from my arguments. Even if the human brain isn't as complex as the things you mentioned that stil means that a very complex object is out there which shows evidence of a design by being complex. Is that not the criteria for determining whether a signal from space is sent by intelligent life? The interesting thing about space is just how huge it is. We don't know where it ends. We can't see to its ends. It is gigantic. And it all somehow came about via random chance. My reasoning for saying DNA is more complex than cars is that while if people were given the parts of a car, they could recreate but scientists are unable to recreate DNA from its constituent parts. I am not saying it is not impossible in the future just right now DNA is easily more complex than any computer program or car. Even if its not as complex its still many times smaller making even harder to duplicate. Quantum mechanics never creates something out of nothing. There may be potential but there is never nothing. Anyways if there is no cause then why did a universe appear and not a pineapple? It has no properties to explain its preferential coming into existence as it had no properties until it came into existence. As for the theory of geocentrism, although it was a central pillar of the Medevial Catholic Christian Church it was not one of original Christianity. The Bible does not promote or require geocentrism.(I am prepared to defend this statement) Geocentrism was originally proposed by Aristotle who was not Christian. The Catholic Church accepted the system because it 'proved' the existence of God. They refused to let go of it even though science showed the system was false. They mixed man's beliefs with what the Bible said and ended up off track. The Bible specifically says not to mix man's teachings with God's. However, the Bible does require a literal translation of Genesis and a young earth and a belief in God and Jesus Christ. Since I believe the Bible to be true, I have to accept these as truth. I am not taking my own beliefs in favor of what science has 'proven'. (Science can't prove anything) Alisyd 01:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

...
"Many religious folk are opposed to the use of this kind of dating." Many religious folk are also believe that dinosaurs and humans co-existed.

"Do they have a argument." Yes, it goes something like this: ignore evidence and favor a 4000-year-old book instead of science.

"No one was there to observe these things, so can we really trust their dates?' Then we can't trust history at all, period. 545lljkr (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC).

Nomination of Moosylvania for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Moosylvania is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Moosylvania until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions)  20:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)