The Multi-Verse: Part II – Where’s the Evidence?

 

Theists are often told that there is no evidence for God’s existence, which we obviously disagree.  The evidence is the same, but the conclusions drawn from the evidence are different.  However, there are times when a claim is made that should have evidence for it and the absence of that evidence renders the claim highly improbable and not worthy of belief.  An example of this is the idea of a multi-verse.   If there is a multi-verse, our universe should look very different.

 

 

 

In 1929, Edwin Hubble observed that every galaxy in our universe was moving away from Earth.  It was like a giant balloon was being blown up.  The galaxies that were twice as far away appeared to be moving away twice as fast and galaxies that were three times as far away appeared to be moving away three times as fast.  The diagram on the right is a model of what it looked like.  The white is for the initial observation and the red is the observation at a later time.  When the red and the white are laid on top of each other, the red galaxies are offset from their original position.  The blue and green galaxies are the fixed points to show that the visual is consistent no matter where in the grid your observation point is.  The observation Hubble made could mean one of two things: 1)  The Earth is the center of the universe or 2)  The universe is expanding.  As cool as Geocentrism sounds, the logical conclusion is that the universe is expanding.

 

In order to discuss the a naturalistic view of the multi-verse, I must assume that an infinite number of actual things, causes, time, etc. can exist in reality as opposed to just mathematical concepts.  I explained why I don’t believe this is possible in a previous post, but for the sake of argument, I’m assuming that I’m wrong.  A real infinity is necessary because in order for there to be a natural cause to the origin of our universe, the cause must extend into the infinite past either as an uncaused cause or an infinite series of causes. 

 

If there is a multi-verse and no creator, it has an infinite past and a non-zero probability of producing universes.  With an infinite amount of time the probability of a possible event, no matter how low the probability is, becomes irrelevant as long as that event is truly possible.  At a bare minimum, we know an expanding universe such as ours is possible.  In an infinite amount of time, there would be an infinite number of expanding universes produced at every possible location within the multi-verse.  Even the idea that different universes with different fundamental constants would be produced is irrelevant because you have an infinite amount of time, so there would be an infinite number of expanding universes just like ours and an infinite number of every other possible universe. 

 

 

The multi-verse would be full of universes because every possible space that can form a universe would form a universe, even if there is an infinite amount of space, because there is an infinite amount of time to fill that space.  The multi-verse would be a literal Hilbert’s Hotel; it would be full, yet have more room for infinitely more universes.  Our universe would have collided with many other expanding universes; some formed an infinite time ago.  It would be like a giant fireworks show; the ultimate grand finale.  We would not be able to tell that our universe is expanding because galaxies from other universes would be coming at us and moving away from us from all directions.  The universe would appear random and chaotic because it would have been formed randomly out of chaos.

 

 

Some say that the multi-verse is outside of our visual range and the other universes are somewhere outside of our universe.  If this is true, there will never be evidence for a multi-verse and the idea of the multi-verse can never be proven true or falsified.  It becomes a claim based on blind faith, which is counter to the ideals held by the scientific community that preaches we should only believe in things that can be empirically verified. 

 

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it does make belief in the multi-verse a leap of blind faith.  There are other philosophical and scientific problems with a naturalistic concept of the multi-verse and I hope to cover these in a future post.  Ironically, if the multi-verse does exist, the best explanation for its existence is a designer.  In trying to escape faith in a designer, atheists have posited an idea that requires faith…and also a designer.

 

 

The Multi-Verse: Part I – Desperate to Avoid God

I really don’t know why I remember this conversation, but I do.  I had just started my freshman year of college and was talking to one of my classmates on a break.  He seemed like a hippie- type, so for him to say that our universe could be one of an infinite number of universes wasn’t surprising to me.  What is surprising to me is how the idea of a multi-verse is now part of mainstream science.  Just about every recently made program I watch regarding the universe preaches the possibility of the multi-verse as if it is true.  Even Nova made a video on the multi-verse.  Let’s be clear; it is only an idea.  It’s not a scientific theory.  A theory has evidence supporting it.  It’s not a scientific hypothesis.  A hypothesis is testable.  The multi-verse has neither supporting evidence nor is it testable, so why is it discussed (preached) in science?

The idea of the multi-verse has been around in science for decades, but it wasn’t taken seriously.  Scientists try to avoid theories that have no evidence and cannot be falsified.  Many claim to reject the existence of God for this reason, but now scientists actively discuss an idea that has no evidence and cannot be falsified.  Why has this changed?  The reason for the change is because the universe appears to have been fine-tuned to allow for life.  What does this mean?  The laws of physics have several constants contained in their equations that, should they vary in the slightest amount, our universe would not have been life permitting, if it had formed at all. 

The most extreme example of fine tuning is the Cosmological Constant which has been tuned to 1:10¹²⁰ (120 decimal places).  If this had been a slightly smaller value, the universe would collapse on itself to form a giant black hole.  If this value had been slightly bigger, the universe would have flown apart so fast that atoms would not have formed.  Just for a scale reference, we’ve had 10¹⁷ seconds since time began and it’s estimated the all of the particles in the observable universe total around 10⁸⁰.  I’ve included more examples below of finely tuned constants.

What is the best explanation for this?  As Leonard Susskind says in this video, “nobody thinks that’s accidental….that is not a reasonable idea that something is tuned to 120 decimal places just by accident”.  The more discoveries scientists make, the more it becomes clear that a designer is required to set these constants into the extremely narrow range.  If one were following the evidence, then a designer is the simplest explanation.  Yet many atheist scientists don’t allow for the option of a designer.  Sandra Faber explains how they get around the evidence:

“Faber declared that there were only two possible explanations for fine-tuning. “One is that there is a God and that God made it that way,” she said. But for Faber, an atheist, divine intervention is not the answer.  “The only other approach that makes any sense is to argue that there really is an infinite, or a very big, ensemble of universes out there and we are in one,” she said.”

This Discover Magazine article discusses if there is an alternative to a creator, since the ‘fine-tuning problem’ indicates intelligence.

“Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle. Or call it the biggest problem in physics. Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse.”

“Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable non­religious explanation for what is often called the “fine-tuning problem”—the baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life.”

“if there is no multiverse, where does that leave physicists? “If there is only one universe,” Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.””

The probability that all of these constants and early universe conditions could be randomly set so precisely and accurately is so low that it is beyond comprehension.  Atheists often claim that there is no evidence for a designer, yet when they discover such evidence, they postulate an idea that has no evidence; an infinite number of universes.  The multi-verse is a faith-based claim, not a scientific hypothesis.  Good science does not come up with theories based on the need to avoid God. 

The fine-tuning of our universe was either caused by a designer or there are an infinite number of universes; one has evidence and the other has to be taken on blind faith.  As Bernard Carr said in the Discover Magazine article, “If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”  Christians are free to follow the evidence where it leads; atheists must hold on to blind faith. 

Examples of fine tuning:

Cosmological Constant – 1:10¹²⁰ – This is the energy of empty space (dark energy) that is causing the universe to expand.  If it were too high the universe flies apart so fast that atoms cannot form, too low and the universe collapses into a black hole.

Critical Density – 1:10¹⁵ – This is the density of the universe required so that it would neither expand nor contract (the density without the Cosmological Constant).  It’s value determines the shape of the universe; open, closed or flat.  If it were too high the universe flies apart, too low and the universe collapses into a black hole.

Universe Density – 1:10⁶² – The density of the universe is tune to 10^-62 of the critical density required for a flat universe.  This has become known as the Flatness Problem.  Life requires an almost flat universe.

The Weak Force – 1:10¹⁰⁰ – The weak force is what allows radioactive decay.  If it were too strong, only heavy elements (like iron) could form; too weak and only light elements (like hydrogen) could form.

Electromagnetic Force to Gravity – 1:10⁴⁰ – If this ratio varied by 10^-40, stars would only form either small red dwarfs or giant blue stars, neither of which can sustain life.

The Amplitude of Primordial Fluctuations (Q) – 1:10⁵ – Q is a measure of the mix of atoms, dark energy, and radiation at the various points in space after the Big Bang (the distribution of the ‘stuff’).  The results are ‘ripples’ throughout space.  If the amplitude of these ripples were larger than 10^-5, the resulting chaos would prevent star formation; smaller than 10^-6 and the universe would collapse into black holes.

Hoyle Resonance – 1:10⁵ – The Hoyle Resonance is a property of carbon-12 that allows both carbon and oxygen to be produced from stars.  A change in this state by 10^-5 would result in either no carbon production or no oxygen production.  The Hoyle Resonance allows for both to be produced.

The mass of hydrogen converted into energy in stars – 0.007% - This is the percent of a hydrogen atom’s mass that is converted into energy from the nuclear reactions of stars.  If that percent were 0.006%, the universe would be full of hydrogen and nothing else.  If that percent were 0.008%, there would be no hydrogen which results in no stars like our sun or water.

Entropy – 1:10¹⁰¹²³ – This is the low entropy value Roger Penrose estimates our universe had at the Big Bang.  Entropy is the amount of order in the universe and never decreases over time.  You could literally take a zero from this number and put it on every particle in the observable universe with many zeroes left over. 

 

Click here for a list of 93 finely tuned constants.

Sources

 

Paper on fine Tuning

InspiringPhilosophy on theTeleological Argument

Reasonable Faith on the Teleological Argument

The Flatness Problem

Roger Penrose on entropy

Leonard Susskind quote – Full Video

Intelligent Design of the Cosmos

List of constants

Problems with Infinity

In my “God of the Naturally Insurmountable Abyss” argument, which is an expanded Kalam Cosmological Argument, I claimed that “An infinite regress of causes is impossible”, but never explained why this is.  Here’s my attempt as a finite being to explain why an infinite number of things, time, causes, etc cannot exist in reality. 

The first step is to define infinity, which is not easy to do.  Webster’s online dictionary says infinity is the quality of having no limits or end.  As this Numberphile video points out, “Infinity is not a number.  It’s an idea.  It’s a concept.”  According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, there are three types of infinity:  potential infinity, actual infinity, and transcendental infinity.  Yikes!  This infinity stuff is difficult!!!

Most people are familiar with the potential infinity, which is

“a non-terminating process (such as "add 1 to the previous number") produces an unending "infinite" sequence of results, but each individual result is finite and is achieved in a finite number of steps”.

 

An example of potential infinity is time. Time began at the Big Bang.  Since then, we’ve added seconds, hours, years, millennia, etc until we reached the present.  When looking toward the future, we will continue to add units of time into the infinite future.  However, at any moment in time you can stop and you have a finite amount of time between t=0 and t=0+x. The potential future time is infinite, but it never becomes an actual infinite or a completed infinity.

An actual infinity is also called a completed infinity.  An example of this is the set of all numbers.  One can continuously count numbers into infinity, which is a potential infinity.  The set of all numbers is an actual infinity.  Another example is length.  A yard has a finite length; however, if you were to start at the beginning of the yard and move only ½ the distance from the start to the end, and then repeat this at ½ the distance between the ½ way point and the end, and then repeat this at the ½ the distance between the ¾ way point and the end, and repeat this again…..you could do this an infinite number of times (it would never end).  The act of repeatedly measuring ½ the distance is a potential infinity.  The yard is a completed infinity because it contains a potential infinity, but a yard is not infinite.  It’s important to note that an actual infinity does not truly exist, but represents an infinite subset.

 

So, back to the infinite regress….an infinite regression is a series of repeating subtractions into negative infinity.  One can count backwards from t=0 to t=0-1=-1 to t=0-1-1=-2 to t=0-1-1-1-…. > -∞, but they will never actually reach negative infinity.  It is a potential infinity because one more unit can always be subtracted from the series.  It can never be completed to be an actual infinity.  The infinity symbol, ∞, represents the concept of not having a limit, but it is not a number anyone can count to.

If the universe has an infinite past, then as we rewind the clock past the Big Bang, time becomes an infinite regression to negative infinity; however, time moves forward.  Negative infinity is not a number and has no limit, so how does one move forward from negative infinity?  There is no point to start from.  Without a starting point, there is always more time to add before the present so one never arrives at the present.  Actually, one never arrives at a -10^10,000 years either.  To say otherwise is treating infinity as a finite number and not a limitless concept.  

A proposed solution is to say that one can count from negative infinity if they never started counting but have always been counting from an infinite past.  This is circular reasoning.  The conclusion is presupposed in the premise.  This is essentially saying that an infinite regression is possible if an infinite regression is possible.  This alone makes the solution logically invalid, but let’s explore the possibility anyway.

Let’s say the past is represented by negative numbers, zero is the present, and positive numbers are the future.  Let’s say you never started counting but have been counting from an infinite past.  An infinite amount of time later, you are still counting negative numbers.  An infinite amount of time after that, you are still counting negative numbers.  An infinite amount of time after that?  Still negative numbers.  To say otherwise means you haven’t really been counting from negative infinity, which is an unlimited amount of negative numbers, but have changed infinity into a number.  But there’s a problem with this…..adding infinity to negative infinity is the same as subtracting infinity from itself, which has an undefined solution…but it gets worse for infinity!! 

Hilbert’s Hotel is a thought experiment created by David Hilbert, a mathematician, to show how infinity doesn’t work in the real world.  This hotel is infinitely large and all of the rooms are full.  If an infinite number of people come, it still has room to hold them, since those in room one can move to room two, and those in room two can move to room three, etc.  If an infinite number of aircraft carriers come with an infinite number of buses on them each containing an infinite number of people in them, there would still be enough room even though the hotel is full.  If an infinite number of people leave, an undefined number of rooms remain full.  If everyone in an even-numbered room leaves, of which there would be an infinite number, there would still be an infinite number of odd rooms occupied.  If all but five people leave, which would also be an infinite number, there will only be five rooms filled.  An infinite number of rooms were vacated in three different ways, yet in one scenario there are an undefined number of full rooms, in another there are an infinite number of full rooms, and in another there are only 5 full rooms.  I think it is safe to agree with Hilbert when he said this:

“The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality.   It neither exists in nature, nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought.  The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.”

The inevitable question then becomes, “What about God?  Isn’t he also infinite?”  That’s where the third type of infinity comes in, the transcendental infinity.  According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

 “a transcendental infinity transcends human limits and detailed knowledge and might be incapable of being described by a precise theory.”

I like to think of it as qualitative infinity instead of quantitative infinity.  God is omnipotent (all-powerful), so he can do anything that can be done.  God is omniscient (all-knowing), so he knows everything that can be known.  God is omnipresent (all-present), so he is everywhere. 

“If you picture time as a straight line along which we have to travel, then you must think of God as the whole page on which the line is drawn.” – C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

In summary, an infinite number of anything (things, time, causes, etc) cannot exist in reality.  Infinity is nothing more than an idea, concept, or mathematical tool.  The conclusion can be drawn independent of science that the universe, and/or multi-verse, is finite in both time and material.

Francis Collins & Theistic Evolution



Francis Collins was a physician and the project manager for the Human Genome Project, which was a project to map the DNA of humans.  A single strand of DNA consists of 3 billion base pairs.  If you were to read it at an average pace, 7-days per week, 24-hours per day it would take 31 years!  Mapping this is no small task.  He wrote a book called, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.  As always, why read a book if there is a video to watch instead!?!

 

The first half of the video is his testimony on how he came to realize the truth of Christianity and second half is how he reconciles faith and evolution.  Here’s a summary:

 

Francis Collins was not raised in a religious home and was an atheist when he started med-school.  He had a patient who was dying and he wondered how she was so at peace at the end of her life.  She was a Christian and asked him what he believed.  He realized that he didn’t really know and had never investigated any evidence to form an opinion one way or the other.

“Scientists are supposed to make decisions after they look at the data, after they look at the evidence.  I had made a decision that there was no God and I’d never really thought about looking at the evidence.  That didn’t seem like a good thing.  It was a decision that I wanted the answer to be, but I had to admit I didn’t really know whether I had chosen the answer on the basis of reason or whether because it was a convenient form of perhaps willful blindness to the evidence.  I wasn’t sure there was any evidence, but I figured I had better go find out.”

After a two year search, he found that nature provides some interesting pointers to God:

·        There is something instead of nothing

·        The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics

·        The Big Bang

·        The precise tuning of physical constants in the universe

·        The Moral Law

 

He came to believe in a creator, but did not know which god to choose from.  It seemed to him that this type of evidence required monotheism.  He investigated Islam, Judaism, and Christianity.   After reading CS Lewis, he settled on Christianity since it provided the redemption he felt he needed.  He also was relieved that there was good evidence for his faith in Christ and that it did not require him to take a blind leap.

“I discovered this great sense of peace and a joyfulness about having finally crossed that bridge, and also to have done so in a fashion that seemed to live up to my hopes that faith would not be something you had to plunge into blindly, but something were there was in fact reason behind the decision.”

One of the things I found interesting about Collins is that he is what is known as a “theistic evolutionist”; he believes God created through the undirected process of evolution as described by Darwin.  He rejects the Intelligent Design movement, where many claim that evolution needed God’s direction to create the complex changes we see, as using the “God of the gaps” argument. 

“ID turns out to be, and I’m sorry to say this for those who have found this a very appealing perspective, but I think it is the truth that ID turns out to be putting God into a gap in scientific knowledge which is now getting rapidly filled.  And that God of the Gaps approach has not served faith well in the past and I don’t think it serves it well in this instance either.”

“ID is not only turning out to be science that’s hard to defend, it’s also sort of an unusual kind of theology cause it implies that God wasn’t quite getting it right at the beginning and had to keep stepping in and helping the process along because it wasn’t capable of generating the kind of complex structures that were needed for life.  Wouldn’t it actually be a more awesome God who started the process off right at the beginning and didn’t have to step in that way?”

Collins thinks the term theistic evolution is confusing, so he prefers BioLogos which means, Life through The Word.  He founded the BioLogos website to help show that faith and science, specifically evolution, can be reconciled.  He makes the following statement in the video:

 

“Almighty God, who is not limited in space or time created our universe 13.7 billion years ago with its parameters precisely tuned to allow the development of complexity over long periods of time.  God’s plan included the mechanism of evolution to create the marvelous diversity of living things on our planet.  Most especially, that creative plan included human beings.  After evolution, in the fullness of time, had prepared a sufficiently advanced neurological “house” (the brain), God gifted humanity with free will and with a soul.  Thus humans received a special status, “made in God’s image”.  We humans used our free will to disobey God, leading to our realization of being in violation of the Moral Law.  Thus we were estranged from God.  For Christians, Jesus is the solution to that estrangement.”

This obviously does not match a literal interpretation of Genesis nor a literal Adam and Eve.  One of the responses Collins gives is to say that Genesis 1 & 2 seem to disagree in the order of creation for humans and plants, so why do we think those chapters were meant to be taken literally or as science?  Collins also says that requiring a literal interpretation of Genes is a recent phenomenon and quotes Augustine from 1600 years ago:

“In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received.  In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it.”

~Saint Augustine, 400 AD, The Literal Meaning of Genesis

Evolution is something that I’m starting to look at.  I’ve never investigated the evidence for or against it nor thought through all of the implications.  I hope to write about my findings as I go along.

What Comes from Nothing?

I asked my 7-year-old “What comes from nothing?” and was, well, not surprised by her answer.  “Nothing comes from nothing, Duh!”  Oh the hours of laughter our family has had over the word “Duh”, but that is something and I am writing about nothing….or am I?  Of course, my daughter is very smart, but she is only 7 and has no grounds to argue with a PhD theoretical physicist and cosmologist that says something can come from nothing.

It is a well-established metaphysical truth (and basic intuition that even a child can understand) that out of nothing, nothing comes.  So, I was a little surprised when many atheists online began to tell me that Lawrence Krauss has demonstrated that something can come from nothing and pointed me to the video below called “A Universe From Nothing”.  Krauss has since written a book titled the same.  Here is what Richard Dawkins wrote about the book.

 “Even the last remaining trump card of the theologian, ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?,’ shrivels up before your eyes as you read these pages.  If ‘On the Origin of Species’ was biology’s deadliest blow to supernaturalism, we may come to see ‘A Universe From Nothing’ as the equivalent from cosmology.  The title means exactly what it says.  And what it says is – devastating.”

Those are some strong words!  He must really be on to something if this book/video is really as devastating as the Oxford professor claims it is.  Here's the video for those who want to sit through an hour long science lesson with a lot of theistic derision. 

I was very curious how he got around the 1^st Law of Thermodynamics, which states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but can only change forms.  It was pretty clear how.  Here are some of my favorite quotes from the video: 

“by nothing I don’t mean nothing I mean nothing”

“nothing isn’t nothing”

“nothing weighs something”

“let’s calculate the energy of nothing”

“nothing is really a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles that are popping in and out of existence”

Nothing isn’t nothing?  Nothing weighs something???  Krauss says in the video that theists are experts at nothing, so since I am a theist, I can say with the authority of an expert that Krauss knows nothing about nothing! 

So what is this “nothing” Krauss believes produced our universe?  In empty space there is still energy present called the vacuum energy.  It cannot be seen and has not been directly detected, which is why it is also called dark energy.  Its value is known as the Cosmological Constant, which Einstein mistake nly put on the wrong side of the equation can called it his biggest blunder (even Einstein’s mistakes were brilliant).  How do we know dark energy exists if it cannot be directly detected?  Matter is attracted to other matter due to gravity.  If all we had in the universe was the matter we see, the universe would collapse in on itself due to the gravitational attraction.  We know the universe is expanding and energy is required to push matter apart; therefore, there is energy pushing the universe apart.  In 2003, WMAP measured the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation and determined that only 5% of the universe is made up of the matter we see (stars, galaxies, planets, etc), 24% is made up of dark matter, and 71% is made up of dark energy. 

Essentially Krauss is saying that 71% of the universe is nothing….except it weighs something, has energy, is full of virtual particles popping in and out of existence, contains quantum fields, and is pushing the universe apart.  Plus the laws of physics had to exist prior to the universe forming.  I’m curious as to why Krauss feels the need to change the definition of the word "nothing" if physics truly shows that God is unnecessary. 

David Albert, who is a professor of philosophy at Columbia University, wrote a scathing review here.  You know it’s bad when a fellow atheist says this:

“Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right.”

Krauss’s response was to call him a “moronic philosopher”.

This is what happens when smart people are determined to deny that God exists and try to use science to falsify the creator of science.  They profess to be wise and become fools (Romans 1:22). 

The Skull That Rocked the Evolutionary World

In Darwinian Evolution, there is no distinction between micro evolution (change to species over time) and macro evolution (change in a higher taxa over time).  To a Darwinist, macro evolution is simply micro evolution over a very long period of time.  When it comes to human evolution, Darwinian Evolution does not say that humans evolved from monkeys or apes; the theory says that humans share a common ancestor with chimpanzees. There’s no need to ask why there are still monkeys around or why we don’t have any duck-gator fossils; these are misconceptions about the theory.  The “missing links” everyone talks about are the fossils that get from homo sapiens to the common ancestor we share, including the common ancestor itself.  Those who oppose Darwinian Evolution have been quick to point out the gaps in the fossil records and filling those gaps with “God did it”, which is where the “God of the Gaps” label comes from.  Over time, scientists have found more and more fossils to close that gap….or have they?

 

In Dmanisi, Georgia (by Russia), anthropologists discovered a new hominid fossil that has rocked the evolutionary world…ok, that’s a slight exaggeration.  Estimated to be 1.8 million years old, this skull is the most intact hominid skull found from its time period and is the earliest hominid fossil found outside of Africa.  In Africa, paleontologists have labeled several unique hominid species due to the separate geographical locations and time periods they believed these hominids lived.  Big deal, eh?  Here’s where it gets interesting.  In Dmanisi, this new skull (the one on the right) is very different from the other fossils found in that same area and from the same time period.  It prompted scientists to examine the variations between the fossils found in Dmanisi and compare them to the variations found in modern humans and also in modern chimpanzees.  The variations in the Dmanisi fossils are within the same range.  This is causing scientists to realize that what they thought were several different hominid species might be part of one species, homo erectus, a predecessor to homo sapiens.  The human evolutionary chain may have shrunk by 5-6 species!

Click here for the article at The Guardian

“David Lordkipanidze at the Georgian National Museum, who leads the Dmanisi excavations, said: "If you found the Dmanisi skulls at isolated sites in Africa, some people would give them different species names. But one population can have all this variation. We are using five or six names, but they could all be from one lineage."”
 
 
Click here for the video

If Fezzik (Andre the Giant) and Princess Buttercup were found in separate locations and from separate time periods, wouldn’t they also be interpreted as different species?  Is it possible that some of these ancestor fossils are not as different from us as some believe?  As time goes on and more fossils are found, I wonder how much more will the human evolutionary history compress. 

 

The BGV Theorem

 

In 1927, Georges Lemaître (a priest) proposed the greatest cosmological theory of the last century:  The Big Bang Theory.  There have been numerous confirmations that the Big Bang Theory is true, such as the expansion of the universe and the cosmic microwave background radiation.  This theory has caused a lot of heartburn to the scientific community, since it says that the universe had a beginning.  Atheists do not want the universe to have a beginning because this requires an external agent to cause the change in state and they know what the implications are.  Since the Big Bang Theory was first proposed, atheist scientists have desperately tried to disprove that the universe had a beginning, but unfortunately for them, one cannot disprove the creator of science by using the science he created. 

There have been many additional theories that have been proposed that attempt to incorporate the Big Bang Theory and an eternal universe in order to avoid a beginning.  They have all failed.  The nail was once again put into the coffin in 2003 by a theorem developed by Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin known as the Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin (BGV) Theorem.  What they discovered is that any universe that is on average expanding cannot have an infinite past; there is a past boundary.  This rules out all models that try to avoid a cosmic beginning.  Here is the link to their paper and here is a video of Vilenkin explaining the theory.  Here is a quote from the paper.

“Our argument shows that null and timelike geodesics are, in general, past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition Hav > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics, when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time (finite affine length, in the null case).”

 

What this is saying is that the only condition that needs to be present to show that ANY universe has a finite past boundary (a beginning) is that it must have an average state of expansion.  This applies to our universe or the multi-verse (if you have faith in such a thing).  There is no doubt in the scientific community that our universe is expanding.  This was discovered by Edwin Hubble in 1929 by looking at the red shift of distant galaxies and repeatedly confirmed.  Since then we have discovered that not only is our universe expanding, but the expansion rate is also accelerating. 

 

“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man.  With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe.  There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” – Alexander Vilenkin

Yet atheist scientists still have trouble admitting that the universe had a beginning and have proposed all kinds of nonsensical, non-falsifiable, faith-based theories to show that the beginning of the universe had a natural cause.  By refusing to follow the evidence, they are saying “Anything, but not God”.

“At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”  - Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (1978)

 

Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 

 

Good luck to all who try to disprove this.