macroevolution and intermediate links

[Texan Christian]

So, according to macroevolution, which I have done much study on (I made a 10 minute platform speech against it a year ago), there should be intermediate links between fossils of animals believed to be connected. The problem with this theory, is that there are few if any (I'd argue there are none, the commonly used "Lucy" actually has evidence that it is simply the skeleton of an ape which would be able to more easily sit upright, all the other bones besides the hip are the same as a normal ape. (if you wish bring up any "intermediate links" you know about)) intermediate links, when, there should be plenty. There should, in fact, be more intermediate links than the fossils of animals living today (or extinct).
I believe some macroevolutionists, seeing the faults in this, believe that animals evolved through many series of "good mutations" which actually benefitted the animal, but there have never been observed a "positive" mutation, and by that theory as well, there should be many positive mutations which happen. If I got anything a little confused or appear to have forgotten something let me know

Good day and God bless y'all

[H.sapiens]

All you're doing is proposing the infinite regression paradox.

...which is used to demonstrate the absurdity of infinity. If you can refute, go right ahead. I will wait.

Wait as long as you like, the ball is in your court, the problem with infinity is yours, your pretense to otherwise is, well, just that ... a pretense.

All I'm doing is saying we don't have it pinned down yet, but we are making pretty good progress.

And with every passing day, we are making progress towards the return of Jesus Christ.[/quote]
Wow ... talk about classic taxi cab fallacy.

[H.sapiens]

Remember, I said that evolution is basically the premise that reptiles evovled into birds.

No, I don't remember that. What I do remember though is you saying "a reptile....slowly...evolving...into a bird."

And?

Yet, the wiki article on "evolution of birds" states..

"There is significant evidence that birds emerged within theropod dinosaurs, specifically, that birds are members of Maniraptora, a group of theropods which includes dromaeosaurs and oviraptorids, among others."

Ah, much better. Is it really that hard to stick to what evolution actually says?

So basically, the above quote that you gave of the wiki article is pretty much a longer version of my quote from the wiki article which basically draws the same conclusion that "reptiles evovled into birds"...which is what I have been saying all along.

Got it.

You think it corroborate with what you said? I don't think it does. But I'll let that slide, I admit it was somewhat nitpicky of me

You get mad props for admitting that.

assuming you understood the points re: an individual vs a population; and modern reptiles vs theropod dinosaurs.

I will ask again; is the archeoterxy an individual, or a population?

Since eight specimens have been found to date and it is unlikely that these represent all the individuals there ever were we must be talking about a population.

If you think we are playing a game, then surely that's all the more reason to learn exactly what evolution says, rather just the wishy washy, not quite accurate, the gist of it version of evolution? Why give your opponents room to call you out for not getting it 100% correct 100% of the time? Don't give us the chance to have your knowledge called in to question.

I said "reptiles evolved into birds", and why you would call that into question, I don't know.

The archaeopteryx? That word gave it away, it was an individual.

But then again, I am not the one that said evolution occurs in populations, not individuals (whatever the hell that means). If archeaopteryx is a transitonal fossil, then obviously evolution happens in individuals, right?

No, that's incorrect. Splitting of one lineage into two is considered large, variation of one lineage is considered small. For a split to happen, there needs to be variation of a lineage, that's why micro evolution is a prerequisite of macro evolution; hence micro and macro.

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. If there is anything contrary to that, I haven't seen it yet. Come to think of it, neither have you or anyone else.

Please show us all where anyone said anything different?

Here, I'll make it simple for you:

Dogs never produced cats (even over geological time) because the are contemporary taxa that shared a common ancestor (similar to Dormaalocyon latouri) about 60 million years ago. D. latouri was neither cat nor dog but was a Carnivoraformid that was well diversified at the earliest Eocene, suggesting that they were diversified during the latest Paleocene.

Fish produced all terrestrial quadrupeds. Not instantly but over time. Arising from fish ancestors were amphibians who age rise to reptiles who gave rise to both birds and mammals.

In no case is it suggesting that these changes in grade occurred within a single generation.

There are lots of things that you have not seen and can't imagine, but don't forget (if I may take a short cab ride) your sacred texts: (Jer. 5:21): They have eyes, but they see not, ears, but they hear not ... In other words, Jeremiah argued against willful ignorance.

Have you considered the alternative that the mistake is not on my end?

No, I have not considered the alternative that the mistake is not on your end.

I can't force you to believe birds evolution, but at least get the terms right. My post wasn't exactly about convincing you of evolution, it was about what the terms micro and macro evolution involve, so you know what exactly it is that you are not believing.

What I don't believe is the concept of a reptile evolving into a bird. You can apply whatever term you want to it.

Your belief is irrelevant, the data is there, fossil, genetic, and immunological. If you have some basis for falsification of the finding, please present it (and likely collect your justly deserved MacArthur fellowship) ... otherwise, it appears that you are just being obstinate.

[Goat]

Would you please provide evidence for the statement of 'the impossibility of life naturally originality from non-living material'? How do you know that?

Same answer I gave Bust:

Because there is no mechanism in nature that will allow the life "force" to come into existence. That is no different than trying to make all of the furniture in your house "come to life". Where will you get the "life" from to embed it into those material objects? You can't do it.

It is the same way with organisms. The "life" had to come from something exterior to it. It had to come from the exterior, not the interior.

Can you show there is a 'life force'?? Please, demonstrate there is a 'life force' to begin with. How do you measure this life force?? What is it made of?? How can you test for this 'life force'?

As for the chemical reactions that make up life, yes, it is known as 'chemistry'.

[Bust Nak]

And?

And you were wrong, either through a casual lack of attention to details, or as a result actual misconceptions. Your insistence that the wiki article corroborates what you said makes me think it's the latter.

So basically, the above quote that you gave of the wiki article is pretty much a longer version of my quote from the wiki article which basically draws the same conclusion that "reptiles evovled into birds"...which is what I have been saying all along.

Got it.

No, I am not sure you do get it. The wiki article is not "pretty much a longer version," rather your quote is a bastardization of the wiki article. It actually says very different things.

You get mad props for admitting that.

You say that like I've only just admitted that. The record will show that I mentioned that in my first post to you. But then again, I think I might have gave you too much credit...

I will ask again; is the archeoterxy an individual, or a population?

...As stuff like this made me think you did miss the point about an individual vs a population. An archeopteryx is an individual.

"A reptile evolved into a bird" is more than just the singular form of "reptiles evolved into birds," it actually shows a misconception of what evolution says. It's as important as the difference between Gods and God. If I was to say Christians worships 3 Gods, then it would show I have a misconception of the Trinity, correct? (Either that or I was trying to piss Christians off.)

What you are describing here is the Pokemon version of evolution, a mere step up from the "if man came from monkeys why are there still monkeys" type of rhetoric.

I said "reptiles evolved into birds", and why you would call that into question, I don't know.

Mainly because it wasn't what you actually said, perhaps it was what you meant to say but it's hard to tell as you keep switching back and forth as if they are interchangeable. A small part because it wasn't clear reptiles meant modern reptiles or ancient theropods; and partly because dinosaurs are not reptiles at all if one was going to be pedantic.

So why not get it 100% correct, 100% of time? Is it really asking too much to say "dinosaurs evolved into birds" instead of "a reptile evolved into a bird?"

But then again, I am not the one that said evolution occurs in populations, not individuals (whatever the hell that means).

In the context of this conversation, it means "see, you don't even know what evolution is." In the wider context, it means exactly what it says, an individual, such as one reptile, does not evolve.

If archeaopteryx is a transitonal fossil, then obviously evolution happens in individuals, right?

Wrong. Archeaopteryx is a transitonal fossil because it has the features that are found in modern reptiles but not in modern birds, AND features that are found in modern birds but not in modern reptiles. An individual being transitional doesn't imply an individual has or indeed can evolve.

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. If there is anything contrary to that, I haven't seen it yet. Come to think of it, neither have you or anyone else.

Sure, that you felt the need to keep bringing this up, gives me impression that you think "if evolution is true, we ought to be seeing something contrary to dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish." This is a misconception and is the reason why you will keep hearing "but that's not what evolution says." Evolution does not say dogs would not produce dogs, instead it says dogs would produce variations of dogs. Evolution does not say cats would not produce cats, instead it says cats would produce variations of cats. Evolution does not say fish would not produce fish, instead it says fishes would produce variations of fishes.

No, I have not considered the alternative that the mistake is not on your end.

Well, it's time you acknowledge that you keep hearing "that's not what evolution says" because it is not actually what evolution says.

What I don't believe is the concept of a reptile evolving into a bird. You can apply whatever term you want to it.

You are doing it again! "A reptile evolving into a bird," but that's not what evolution says. See? you don't even know what evolution is.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to For_The_Kingdom]

Makes no sense. Even atheists agree that life is finite, and if God doesn't exist, there is no way to explain the origins of finite life, if not from nonliving material.

I mean, you can keep trying to explain it. Keep hope alive. But every time you try, I will be right back here to demonstrate how foolish of a concept it is.

Okay, let's tackle this subject head on. My apologies if this becomes somewhat lengthy, but it is a complicated issue. I told you in another string in the Christianity and Apoligetics sub forum that I would provide an extended explanation if you wanted it. Since you keep expressing the same objections, I will present the answer here. It's more appropriate in the Science sub forum anyway.

It is often said, and widely postulated to be true, that everything has a beginning. In fact this is entirely ERRONEOUS. Everything is in fact a continuation of things that went before. No discreet spontaneous beginnings are observed AT ALL. For example, none of us existed as discreet individuals prior to our conception. The material that had the potential to become us existed with our parents, just as the material that would become them existed with their parents. Every particle in our bodies, from the moment of our conception to this very moment in time has existed for billions of years, AT LEAST, in other forms.

Einstein's famous theorem E=MC^2 tells us that matter and energy are co-equivalent. Matter is simply one of the forms that energy takes. And as nuclear fission has abundantly established, the energy potential of even small amounts of matter is quite enormous. The law of conservation of energy specifically tells us that energy itself can neither be created or destroyed. If the law of conservation of energy is a valid and inviolate law of physics, which is the very purpose of describing the physical laws of nature as "laws," then every particle of our bodies has existed eternally in various forms prior to our current existence, and will continue to exist eternally in other forms after we have passed away. Everything is recycled and reused again and again, eternally. Energy takes many forms, but it's potential always remains constant. If the law of conservation of energy is correct and inviolate, then energy, which is what the universe is, can neither be created or destroyed. Based on all observation, when we consider the beginning of the observable universe as a discreetly unique collection of energy, there is absolutely no basis for supposing that the universe simply popped into being where nothing had existed before. We have ABSOLUTELY NO EXPERIENCE with such a condition. Our experience is that CAUSE ALWAYS PRECEDES EFFECT. Based on all observation and experience, we have every reason to suppose that the universe was BORN as a result of conditions which already existed. And within our own universe this pattern of ongoing change, this FRACTALIZATION, continues through the process of the formation of black holes.

How did our universe begin? As something approximating a singularity, when matter/energy was squeezed into a point so dense that space would have nearly, at least, ceased to exist, and time would have approached, at least, infinite slowness. What happens when massive stars explode? The lightest elements are blown away and their heaviest elements are then reduced by the force of gravity into something approximating a singularity, from which not even light can escape and which then disappears from our plane of existence. Leaving only gravity for us to mark their passage. The question "Where did the energy for our universe come from" is echoed in the question, "Where did the energy in a black hole go?" The obvious answer in both cases is SOMEPLACE ELSE. A direction which is beyond the plane of our existence which we can not, as of yet at least, perceive. It IS clear however, that the energy in a black hole WAS DERIVED FROM OUR UNIVERSE. In other words, A CONDITION IN WHICH THE ENERGY EXISTED PRIOR TO THE FORMATION OF THE BLACK HOLE. This and the law of conservation of energy implies, at least, that the energy of our universe existed in a condition prior to the big bang. And this of course implies a multi-verse.

It is observed that the centers of most large galaxies glow brightly in x-rays. The explanation for this is that super massive black holes reside at the centers of most large galaxies, and they are accreting material from stars which are within their gravitational reach. As this material falls into the black hole it heats up, causing x-rays. The center of our Milky Way galaxy is an exception. It does not shine in x-rays. The Milky Way galaxy is spinning far too fast for there NOT to be a super massive black hole at it's center however. The inference here is that the super massive black hole at the center of our galaxy has already devoured all of the material within it's gravitational reach. But the point is, it is very possible for a black hole to continue gathering energy FROM OUTSIDE OF ITSELF. It is not creating energy, but acquiring energy which already exists. The law of conservation of energy is in no way violated by this.

According to observation based on the Doppler Effect, our universe is rapidly expanding. The galaxies farthest way from us seem to be receding from us at the speed of light in fact, an observation which seems to confound reason. Because, given the amount of matter that we CAN see, the expansion of the universe should be slowing due to the effects of gravity. The explanation for this apparent expansion is that there must be some mysterious unseen force, a force termed "dark energy," which is the cause of this expansion. It's as if the universe were gaining energy which WOULD violate the law of conservation of energy. Unless of course this energy already existed. It's as though energy exists outside of the universe, and the universe is tapping into it. Again, this is another implication of a multiverse. A vast cosmos of universes made of energy which we cannot, as yet, observe. Black holes accreting energy from outside of themselves MAY be the clue to conditions that we are observing in our own universe. Just perhaps, the interior of our own black hole we call the universe.

But you see, these are possibilities. Science deals in facts that can be quantified, like the law of conservation of energy, and then reflects on the possibilities of these discoveries. The polar opposite of religion, which declares "God did it, I believe it, and that settles it!" In science nothing is settled and inquiry continues. In religion everything is settled, and the door to inquiry is closed.

If the multiverse is true, how many infinite possibilities of universes have been realized and will yet be realized, each with it's own set of parameters, given that energy is INFINITE IN DURATION? There is no answer to this of course, because infinity has no number. And within this range of infinite possibility, what are the chances that a just right bowl of porridge which allows for a universe which further allows for our sort of existence, will be produced? Given that we are dealing with infinity, the answer is SOMETHING APPROACHING 100%. The driving force behind this process seems to derive from quantum mechanics. Believers choose to call the process God, because this allows them to feel safe and secure in the belief that their existence is the result of some cosmic plan. Science simply calls it quantum mechanics however. Something to be studied and understood, but not worshiped.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Since eight specimens have been found to date and it is unlikely that these represent all the individuals there ever were we must be talking about a population.

But the parents of these specimens birthed them one at a time, right?

Dogs never produced cats (even over geological time) because the are contemporary taxa that shared a common ancestor (similar to Dormaalocyon latouri) about 60 million years ago. D. latouri was neither cat nor dog but was a Carnivoraformid that was well diversified at the earliest Eocene, suggesting that they were diversified during the latest Paleocene.

Fish produced all terrestrial quadrupeds. Not instantly but over time. Arising from fish ancestors were amphibians who age rise to reptiles who gave rise to both birds and mammals.

So you are basically telling me your religion. You are explaining to me your religion, which is pretty much bio-preaching.

What I want is EVIDENCE for the theory. Got any of that?

In no case is it suggesting that these changes in grade occurred within a single generation.

I said EVIDENCE.

There are lots of things that you have not seen and can't imagine, but don't forget (if I may take a short cab ride) your sacred texts: (Jer. 5:21): They have eyes, but they see not, ears, but they hear not ... In other words, Jeremiah argued against willful ignorance.

Coollll beans. I got one for you too. Genesis 1:24-25

24Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so. 25God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good".

Now, the book of Genesis was written a few thousand years ago. If we fast forward from the time it was written, to 5-11-16...what do we see? We see animals producing their own "kind".

If you believe that hundreds of million years ago, when no one was conveniently around to see it, animals were producing different "kinds" than what they were, then fine. Believe it. But that isn't science, that is voodoo.

So one one was around to see it occur back then, and the next "change" will happen so far into the future that no one alive today will be able to see it. So no matter what point man is in history, those that are alive at any point on the time scale will never see it, because it will always have happened "so long ago" and it won't happen again until "so long from now".

So basically, the entire theme is "no one has ever saw it, nor will anyone ever see it, but......it happens".

If you don't see the scam...the absolute CON that is evolution, then I can't help you. You are the one that is willfully ignorant if that is the case.

[For_The_Kingdom]

And you were wrong, either through a casual lack of attention to details, or as a result actual misconceptions. Your insistence that the wiki article corroborates what you said makes me think it's the latter.

No, I got it right. Evolutionists believe that reptiles evolved into birds, as the wiki article plainly stated, as if you Google "reptiles evolved into birds", you will get pretty much the same thing all the way around.

You were just simply wrong.

No, I am not sure you do get it. The wiki article is not "pretty much a longer version," rather your quote is a bastardization of the wiki article. It actually says very different things.

It says what I stated it says.

"There is significant evidence that birds emerged within theropod dinosaurs, specifically, that birds are members of Maniraptora, a group of theropods which includes dromaeosaurs and oviraptorids, among others."

Not only that, but even the Berkely article...even more EXPLICITLY states..

"The discovery that birds evolved from small carnivorous dinosaurs of the Late Jurassic was made possible by recently discovered fossils from China..."

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... vograms_06

So again, why you have the audacity to sit there and argue with me over one of the most common and fundamentally known themes (for lack of a better term) of evolution is beyond me.

You apparently just wanted to flex your muscles on the subject, but you came across as more disingenuous than anything. So because of that, there is no need to discuss the subject with you any further.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 3 by Texan Christian]

Hey Tex!

First off, I have to say.. 13 years old. Bravo!
I really LIKE that you challenge yourself like that.

Ok, I promised you to examine your reasoning, and so far, I can't fault it at all. You seem to KNOW what a theory is.. I'm impressed!

Now, let's take a gander at your theory:

My theory would be that God created animals (microevolution does exist of course, so, for example, he would have created one species of dog which, due to MICROevolution, changed, but only WITHIN the boundaries of its own DNA.

Good day and God bless

Ok, I would say... that's a good theory! It would explain how life got to be the way that it is.

But now, we need a few facts to see if the theory fits with reality in any way. How do we PROVE this theory?

Any ideas?

[Bust Nak]

No, I got it right.

No you didn't. Read what you said again: "a reptile....slowly...evolving...into a bird." Now note what you are saying now:

Evolutionists believe that reptiles evolved into birds, as the wiki article plainly stated, as if you Google "reptiles evolved into birds", you will get pretty much the same thing all the way around.

So like I asked you originally, why is it so hard to get it 100% right 100% of the time? Why is it so hard to accept you got it wrong?

You were just simply wrong.

It says what I stated it says.

If you know what it says, why can't you get it 100% right 100% of the time? Maybe you are not aware how significant the difference between singular "a reptile evolving into a bird" and plural "dinosaurs evolving into birds" is, but the least you could to is acknowledge they are different. Then you can move on to understanding why this difference is so important.

"There is significant evidence that birds emerged within theropod dinosaurs, specifically, that birds are members of Maniraptora, a group of theropods which includes dromaeosaurs and oviraptorids, among others."

Not only that, but even the Berkely article...even more EXPLICITLY states..

"The discovery that birds evolved from small carnivorous dinosaurs of the Late Jurassic was made possible by recently discovered fossils from China..."

Right, note how it is different to what you said? That's like quoting an article of the Trinity and insisting that it corroborates with the claim that Christians worships 3 Gods.

So again, why you have the audacity to sit there and argue with me over one of the most common and fundamentally known themes (for lack of a better term) of evolution is beyond me.

I don't doubt it's beyond you, but I did try to make it as easy to understand as possible, along with analogies and examples. I am arguing with you over such basic stuff because it shows you have deep misconceptions on even the "most common and fundamentally known themes." It's not as trivial as getting singular and plural mixed up, it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution says, and this is important: Multiple dinosaurs evolved into multiple birds, does not imply multiple instances of a single dinosaur evolving into a single bird.

You apparently just wanted to flex your muscles on the subject, but you came across as more disingenuous than anything. So because of that, there is no need to discuss the subject with you any further.

That's up to you whether you want to discuss or not. You want to taking about disingenuity, look no further than your failure to acknowledge the difference between what you said and what the Berkely article says. I am "flexing my muscles" only in the sense that I am trying to teach you something. Look, do you want to hear less "see? You don't even know what evolution says" or not?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Okay, let's tackle this subject head on. My apologies if this becomes somewhat lengthy, but it is a complicated issue. I told you in another string in the Christianity and Apoligetics sub forum that I would provide an extended explanation if you wanted it. Since you keep expressing the same objections, I will present the answer here. It's more appropriate in the Science sub forum anyway.

Well get on with it.

It is often said, and widely postulated to be true, that everything has a beginning. In fact this is entirely ERRONEOUS.

More like "everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause"

Everything is in fact a continuation of things that went before. No discreet spontaneous beginnings are observed AT ALL. For example, none of us existed as discreet individuals prior to our conception. The material that had the potential to become us existed with our parents, just as the material that would become them existed with their parents. Every particle in our bodies, from the moment of our conception to this very moment in time has existed for billions of years, AT LEAST, in other forms.

Not so fast. First off, I am under the demonstrably proven impression that the universe began to exist (all space, time, energy, and time [STEM]). Second, remember, the argument is that "everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause", and you've practically admitted that in the above quote.

So the premise is still true; everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Einstein's famous theorem E=MC^2 tells us that matter and energy are co-equivalent. Matter is simply one of the forms that energy takes. And as nuclear fission has abundantly established, the energy potential of even small amounts of matter is quite enormous. The law of conservation of energy specifically tells us that energy itself can neither be created or destroyed. If the law of conservation of energy is a valid and inviolate law of physics, which is the very purpose of describing the physical laws of nature as "laws," then every particle of our bodies has existed eternally in various forms prior to our current existence, and will continue to exist eternally in other forms after we have passed away.

The first law of thermodynamics "matter/energy can not be created or destroyed" is a law that came into effect only AFTER the universe began to exist. Just like the Constitution of the United States came into effect only AFTER the United States became a nation.

Contemporary physics tells us that the universe began to exist at some point in the finite past. The only logical explanation is that something/someone gave it its beginning. And this act is far from a "violation of physics", but a "beginning of physics".

Everything is recycled and reused again and again, eternally.

Eternally into the future, but finite in the past.

Based on all observation, when we consider the beginning of the observable universe as a discreetly unique collection of energy, there is absolutely no basis for supposing that the universe simply popped into being where nothing had existed before.

I am glad you admit that.

We have ABSOLUTELY NO EXPERIENCE with such a condition. Our experience is that CAUSE ALWAYS PRECEDES EFFECT. Based on all observation and experience, we have every reason to suppose that the universe was BORN as a result of conditions which already existed.

Then what you are implying is that the past is eternal, which is logically incoherent. If the conditions that allowed for our universe to exist have been there for eternity, then why did our universe begin to exist a finite time ago??

It seems as if scientists/naturalists ignore the illogical implications and focus only on the science. But no matter how good the science is, it has to make logical sense, and in this case you are telling me that the conditions that it took for our universe to began existed for eternity, but it had "just" come to past only 13.7 billion years ago, when it had eternity to get it done?

How did our universe begin? As something approximating a singularity, when matter/energy was squeezed into a point so dense that space would have nearly, at least, ceased to exist, and time would have approached, at least, infinite slowness.

But that is the point, the singularity wasn't just sitting there for eternity waiting to expand..it had to have come from somewhere.

What happens when massive stars explode? The lightest elements are blown away and their heaviest elements are then reduced by the force of gravity into something approximating a singularity, from which not even light can escape and which then disappears from our plane of existence. Leaving only gravity for us to mark their passage. The question "Where did the energy for our universe come from" is echoed in the question, "Where did the energy in a black hole go?" The obvious answer in both cases is SOMEPLACE ELSE. A direction which is beyond the plane of our existence which we can not, as of yet at least, perceive. It IS clear however, that the energy in a black hole WAS DERIVED FROM OUR UNIVERSE. In other words, A CONDITION IN WHICH THE ENERGY EXISTED PRIOR TO THE FORMATION OF THE BLACK HOLE. This and the law of conservation of energy implies, at least, that the energy of our universe existed in a condition prior to the big bang. And this of course implies a multi-verse.

You cannot postulate the cause/effect chain backwards to past eternity. Again, this is the philosophical problem that scientists/naturalists ignore. Everything that you just said in the quote above sounds scientifically great. It sounds like some good naturalistic stuff was going on during those earlier times.

But the problem is the LOGICAL absurdity that would result IF what you say is true. What you are postulating is a past eternal causal chain. The idea is "this happened, and before this happened, that happened, and before that happened, that happened, and before that happened, that happened, and so on and so forth...alllll the way backwards to past eternity".

But such an idea is logically impossible. If the cause/effect chain is eternal in its past, then that would be that for whatever moment X, there was an infinite moments prior to X...and in that case, the present moment X would never come to past, if an infinite amount of prior X moments preceded it.

That would be like if I asked you to travel to a destination that is an infinite distance away, you would never get there, because for every step that you take, you would have an infinite amount of more steps in front of you. So it will be like running on a treadmill...running, and getting nowhere.

There is absolutely NO WAY out of this problem, and this problem is completely and wholly independent of any view you take on cosmology. No cosmological model can help you, no scientists, no philosopher, no mathematician. God himself cannot even help one get around this problem, and if God can't help you, no one can.

So in essence, the past cannot be eternal, a First Cause is necessary.

According to observation based on the Doppler Effect, our universe is rapidly expanding. The galaxies farthest way from us seem to be receding from us at the speed of light in fact, an observation which seems to confound reason. Because, given the amount of matter that we CAN see, the expansion of the universe should be slowing due to the effects of gravity. The explanation for this apparent expansion is that there must be some mysterious unseen force, a force termed "dark energy," which is the cause of this expansion. It's as if the universe were gaining energy which WOULD violate the law of conservation of energy. Unless of course this energy already existed. It's as though energy exists outside of the universe, and the universe is tapping into it. Again, this is another implication of a multiverse. A vast cosmos of universes made of energy which we cannot, as yet, observe. Black holes accreting energy from outside of themselves MAY be the clue to conditions that we are observing in our own universe. Just perhaps, the interior of our own black hole we call the universe.

The universe could have existed for as long as a finite time as you'd like it to be. The point is, it couldn't be eternal in its past.

But you see, these are possibilities. Science deals in facts that can be quantified, like the law of conservation of energy, and then reflects on the possibilities of these discoveries. The polar opposite of religion, which declares "God did it, I believe it, and that settles it!" In science nothing is settled and inquiry continues. In religion everything is settled, and the door to inquiry is closed.

But that is exactly the point!!! At some point you are going to need a beginning of all beginnings. To say that "God did it" doesn't mean that you have to stop science or inquiry. To say that "God did it", does it make the universe any less fasinating? To say that "God did it", does that make you any less concerned about how the world works?

Those all sound like personal problems to me lol.

If the multiverse is true, how many infinite possibilities of universes have been realized and will yet be realized, each with it's own set of parameters, given that energy is INFINITE IN DURATION? There is no answer to this of course, because infinity has no number. And within this range of infinite possibility, what are the chances that a just right bowl of porridge which allows for a universe which further allows for our sort of existence, will be produced? Given that we are dealing with infinity, the answer is SOMETHING APPROACHING 100%. The driving force behind this process seems to derive from quantum mechanics. Believers choose to call the process God, because this allows them to feel safe and secure in the belief that their existence is the result of some cosmic plan. Science simply calls it quantum mechanics however. Something to be studied and understood, but not worshiped.

There is no multiverse, and even if there is, it cant be infinite.