Answer to OP = No

(November 9, 2012 at 4:30 am)genkaus Wrote: Wrong. You have to first prove that entropy must've been an part of universe for eternity.

Actually all I have to do (and I've already done) is point to mainstream science and the big bang. The universe had a beginning. Unless it's cyclical, it's not eternal.

(November 9, 2012 at 8:32 am)John V Wrote:

(November 9, 2012 at 4:30 am)genkaus Wrote: Wrong. You have to first prove that entropy must've been an part of universe for eternity.

Actually all I have to do (and I've already done) is point to mainstream science and the big bang. The universe had a beginning. Unless it's cyclical, it's not eternal.

What you have to do before you point to it is learn what it actually says. The mainstream science does not say that the universe had a beginning.

(November 9, 2012 at 1:36 am)Godschild Wrote:

(November 8, 2012 at 10:38 pm)Stimbo Wrote: No, this is not some satanic mutant, and yes those are vestigial legs; evolutionary remnants from a full legged ancestor.

I can't wait to see that thing get up and run, it should be spectacular.

How about swimming:

Pachyrachis problematicus Wrote:Pachyrhachis problematicus is a snake with well-developed hind limbs known from two specimens from the Cenomanian of the Middle East. [. . .] Confirmed morphology best supports the phylogenetic hypothesis that Pachyrhachis is a basal macrostomatan snake. Limb retention in a basal macrostomatan snake implies that loss of hind limbs occurred multiple times within Serpentes.

Not enough? Well, how about:

Haasiophis terrasanctus

Eupodophis descouensi

Najash rionegrina

It's interesting, isn't it, that your favourite story hinges on a serpent with legs that becomes cursed with crawling on its belly, yet when shown known evolutionary evidence of exactly that, suddenly it becomes a problem for you. One might almost conclude that your belief isn't quite as strong as you seem to want to think.

(November 9, 2012 at 9:09 am)genkaus Wrote: What you have to do before you point to it is learn what it actually says. The mainstream science does not say that the universe had a beginning.

That's interesting. Does mainstream science say that the universe has an age?

Mainstream science says that, since the big-bang, approximately 13.6 billion years have passed, 13.6*10^9 years.
What happened before the big-bang is speculation. If there was already a Universe, so much the better, but we don't know.

I'm surprised that no one mentioned anti-matter when someone talked about negative energy...

(November 8, 2012 at 8:01 pm)Godschild Wrote: God has always been and is the cause of all that has ever existed.

You say god has always been as if it is a fact. It isn't a fact, it's a bullshit belief. And it's a bullshit belief because you can't even offer up any evidence for god even being real, let alone "always been".

Come back with credible evidence that god is something more than a made up gap filler, and THEN you can start talking about how he's "always been".

If god could always have been, then so could the universe. Which of course would mean no need for god.

(November 9, 2012 at 9:49 am)John V Wrote:

(November 9, 2012 at 9:09 am)genkaus Wrote: What you have to do before you point to it is learn what it actually says. The mainstream science does not say that the universe had a beginning.

That's interesting. Does mainstream science say that the universe has an age?

No. It simply tells you how much time has passed since the bog-bang.

(November 9, 2012 at 10:02 am)pocaracas Wrote: Mainstream science says that, since the big-bang, approximately 13.6 billion years have passed, 13.6*10^9 years.
What happened before the big-bang is speculation. If there was already a Universe, so much the better, but we don't know.

I've already done the speculation:

The universe could have existed eternally as a singularity. However, there's then no reason for the big bang.

Universe was not a singularity, collapsed into a singularity, then big bang: i.e. a cyclic universe.

That's fine. However, speculation is far from the end of the journey. Now all you need to do is devise experiments to test your speculation, write it all up as a paper, submit it to a journal such as Nature for peer review, then collect your Nobel prize. It really is that simple.