GPLindsey

Advocates of the Design argument, answer me this:

When the universe was only 1 billion years old, and it was basically an expanding gas cloud, did it have evidence of design?

When the universe was 10 billion years old, and the earth was a molten, volcanic rock being battered by meteors, did the universe have evidence of design?

When the universe is 100 trillion years old, and all the matter in it has been sucked into black holes, which in turn then decay into nothingness--is this evidence of design?

Why artificially stop your watch now and say that the universe has evidence of design, because we are here, and ignore the fact that the universe is simply a slow motion explosion that will eventually peter out? Can't we just as well say that the Creator's design was an immense expanse filled with black holes, and that we are still in just the early stages of him achieving this grand purpose?

Automaton

Frankly, one tiny little piece of design, existing for only a short time, would convince me. The creationists don't give a crap about what the universe is, they just care about what they want it to be.

Theli

The old design argument, huh?
A fallacy with the design argument is that it desires a particular outcome of the universe (value it higher). And to assume that this desire(value) existed before us is to assume the designer's existence in advance. A tautology.

[ July 04, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

atrahasis

In Genesis 1:
"The earth was formless and void..."
I usually ask theists: "Who created the formless and void earth?".
Some like, LinuxPup, argue for BigBang cosmology in the bible.
It gets weird.

hinduwoman

Don't the Creationists argue that the universe is only 6000 yearls old? If so, this argument would be meaningless to them.

Synaesthesia

Hinduwoman,

Most of the prominent creationists these days have dropped the young earth argument as harmful to their cause. They don't want to be having to defend nonsense that obvious I suppose.