Enough so that we have a multiplicity of fossils of the life forms that we know of today. It would seem likely that there would be at least a couple of transitions shown in a variety of creatures if evolution were to be true. I won't argue too much about the inaccuracy of fossils, however, because some of the information the scientists pull out of some small fossil fragments is rather astounding. I find it difficult to believe that it is possible to determine the size/shape/etc. of a creature from a small fragment of bone and a second fossil from a different site.
On the other hand, we have an enormous increase in the number of fossils since Darwin's time, with no major transitional form being found. Because of the appearance of MINOR transitions, however, it seems unlikely that MAJOR transitions taking place over a long period of time could go without any record at all.
It sounded more like you were trying to prove it...but I do see your point rhetorically in doing this.
Well, I see no argument for the universe to have existed for an infinite amount of time (or the seed thereof, which I think you are referring to, as the typical belief is that the universe is 14 Billion years old.
We don't tell which religion is correct through origins of life. I am arguing for a non-temporal (that is, not bound by time) Creator at this point. I could argue for the Christian God, but it would not be related to this current discussion, and therefore would be extra. Just be aware, however, that origins of life issues cannot be proven/disproven by a multiplicity of religious beliefs. Just because there are several people who could have written an anonymous book doesn't necessarily mean that the book showed up out of nowhere with no force intervening besides random chance and an ink shower.
Where would the energy come from, then? And why are you adding even more random chance into a process with already infintessimal odds? And how do you know the Superstring Theory is correct?
We cannot KNOW, fully, that either God or evolution is the answer. We can merely make observations and use what we know about the universe to draw conclusions about which is correct. There can be a high degree of certainty, but never 100%. I doubt that many theories have reached 100% certainty.
And it seems to be no use arguing about what came before the Big Bang. From what I saw on a quick Google search, scientists aren't willing to touch that subject with a 29 and 1/2 foot pole. If they cannot find anything from that time period, any explanation of the appearance of the primordial atom that the universe came from will be purely conjecture, and therefore based on faith rather than logic. In such a case, reviewing the rest of the evidence seems to be a logical conclusion.
And I see no argument in favor of evolution. Show me why.
First off, just because something is infinite doesn't mean they cannot use non-infinite force. Something with infinite power could choose not to use it- look at, say, a wrestler. Just because he's really strong doesn't mean he can't use force less than his maximum- he can still give his kid a hug. Also, being a spiritual being does not mean that there is no possibility of a physical manifestation. But, you already said, there is no way of physically creating matter. A higher method would be needed, one that could only be afforded by a being higher than the physical realm.
I suppose a possible explanation for the force behind all creation, that which brought us to where we are today, is Providence, though that would not be truly physical explanation. I think this would be one of the matters that, as IDL says, our mathematically, overly-logical minds could not comprehend. But, what kind of argument does evolutionism give for such occurances? Blind chance? Would it not be more likely to conclude that SOME UNKNOWN FORCE was behind it, whether physical or metaphysical, rather than face the outrageous odds offered by blind chance?
My argument would be that Matter, which would be what the proposed atom-that-exploded-into-the-Universe would be made of, and therefore Energy, which is what makes up Matter, are temporal (bound by time, since we, as temporal creatures can have some basic understand of it) and are likely, as temporal creations, to (a) have at some point in time not existed and (b) follow known rules of temporal things. If anything, even a universe seed or some random strands of energy, were eternal, they world would be infinitely disordered, so even the Big Bang's atom would have to have had a beginning. God, on the other hand, would be non-physical and atemporal (and thus rather confusing to us as temporal beings) and therefore be able to have never been created, simply because SOMETHING would have to have such properties in order for anything physical to have appeared. And, as a non-physical being, God would not be subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the bane of the existant of the Steady State theory of the universe (that has been replaced by the Big Bang theory)
Actually, looking back over this, it seems like any explanation of what happened before the proposed Big Bang would be purely theoretical and based more on a personal philosophy than logic or absolute proof. Again, I say, other evidence is helpful if the point you are arguing becomes purely theoretical. And, I believe, other evidence would point more closely to a Creator than to evolution.
And, just one thing from your rebuttal to IDL:
You say everything IN THE UNIVERSE is bound by the laws of physics. However, since the universe is not infinite (as it cannot be) it cannot contain an infinite God. And, of course, the logical extension of God not being contained within the universe is that he is not, therefore, bound by the laws of physics, which, in any case, were not meant to deal with the spiritual, anyway.
I'm not sure if you are arguing or agreeing with me. God being outside of time has jack squat to do with creation - by that I meant He can twist and exist without time. Nothing preventing him from making the world, and, for that matter, time itself. I DO say God is infinite, so what is your point in that statement?
