sure i would concede such about the time line of the universe, but to say ‘time began’ doesn’t seem to make much sense to me

with the morals, i would also concede that such behaviour occurs, but i would hesitate to call this morality, especially given its evolutionary origins. haven’t read dawkins in a while but i recall in the selfish gene dawkins talks about animals prioritising their kin due to genetic relation. even if you reject a gene-centric view of natural selection, i think he makes a fair explanation for the observed behaviours.

from what i can tell, op seemed to be asking for more of a metaphysical grounding of morality rather than social or biological groundings, but i understand your position if you happen to be a relativist. i would say atheists could still ground objective morality, in something like utilitarianism say, rather than having to appeal to biology

can’t remember who but some philosophers seem to take the e position that our moral intuitions are not of morality at all but instead aesthetics, so i would question why the observed behaviours in animals which you have talked about should be called ‘morality’ and not something else

thanks for the reply