The stupidest things religionists say...

[thundril]

Latest post of the previous page:

The other issue that ID people do not understand about 'chance' is in the example of throwing 6 6s, in evolution if in the first throw you get a 6, you keep the 6 and only throw the other 5 dice.

Excellent point, Altfish. Very important in discussions around evolution. Don't know if applies quite so well to the Godsquad's other recent favourite, 'the fine tuning' argument. But then again, we can actually see evolution going on around us, whereas the selection of the fundamental constants happens before the Universe gets going. (If it 'happens' at all, that is.)

[thundril]

As far as the tendency to attribute intelligent design to things which in fact are not designed intelligently, this applies not just to religionists but to others, eg the believers in aliens around us. The so-called "Face on Mars", in the Cydonia region of Mars, is held by some to suggest a deliberated sculpting, but one can see lots of humanlike appearances in terrestrial geological formations - who sculpted these?

Studying facial expressions is one of the most important skills that a human baby has to develop, both for individual survival and for future reproductive chances. So we can see a 'face' in more or less any group of four or five shadows or patches of colour.
Further, because we are pattern-seekers, we look for patterns in anything new. If we don't see some other recognisable pattern, we often end up deciding the thing looks like a human or monstrous face.
This might be one of the origins of religious feeling, rather than a product of it.

[Compassionist]

It makes a hell of a difference in the selection process, because the odds on throwing a '6' when throwing six dice (should that be die? what's the plural of dice?) is pretty high, whereas the odds on throwing six 6s at once are very low.

Die is singular, dice is plural, so, throwing six dice is correct.

[Compassionist]

as you imply, Compo, Creationists are not good at arguments, and some of the arguments (eg the second one on statistics mentioned by Thundril) are hard to grasp, though he explained it clearly. Maybe you should get these people to actually set out what they claim - rather than their just relying on a glib attempt at ridicule.

So in the case of the sandcastle, their argument is roughly: 1 Even atheists must agree that the sandcastle was intentionally designed. 2 Many other things are intelligently designed, ie designed by human beings. 3 Therefore, what is the atheist's problem in accepting that most things are designed? 4 And since humans could not have designed themselves or the universe they live in, the designer must be God.

The problems with the argument include: first, just because some things are designed it does not follow that others are. Second, does the theist really believe what he says? Does he believe that every feature of life, every bit of rock or water, was designed in its present state by God? In fact of course he does not; he knows that things are in constant change, and he uses our accepted notion of causation to explain this. So where does God's direct design begin and end? Third, I think you and all of us should always get opponents to define their terms. In the case of intelligent design, what exactly counts as design, or specifically intelligent design? What about not a sandcastle but a wasp's nest - this appears to have design features, so is it the result of design? And if yes, do the wasps collectively count as an intelligent designer?

Your analysis of the sandcastle argument is accurate. I think there are different beliefs about what God allegedly created from scratch and what arose from that.

[Tetenterre]

...throwing a '6' when throwing six dice (should that be die? what's the plural of dice?)

Dice is the plural of die - but the plural is as near as dammit ubiqutously used as the singular and, a few years back, the GCSE examining boards started using "dice" as singular. The die is cast!

[thundril]

shouldn't the singular of dice be douse?

[Alan H]

shouldn't the singular of dice be douse?

That's louse-y.

[Alan H]

Louisiana floods destroy home of Christian leader who says God sends natural disasters to punish gay people

[Tetenterre]

shouldn't the singular of dice be douse?

Not sure, but I am reliably informed that some consider the plural of spouse to be spice - as in "variety is the..."