Re: concordism/time

From: James W Stark (stark2301@voyager.net)
Date: Tue Jan 11 2000 - 10:58:21 EST

  • Next message: Massie: "[Fwd: Re: concordism/time]"

    ----------
    >From: Massie <mrlab@ix.netcom.com>
    >To: Dick Fischer <dfischer@mnsinc.com>
    >Subject: Re: concordism/time
    >Date: Mon, Jan 10, 2000, 10:54 PM
    >

    > Dick Fischer wrote:
    >>
    >> Jim Stark wrote:
    >>
    >> >Could someone explain the logic of interpretation that asserts time was
    >> >created? "In the beginning" implies the beginning position of a sequence of
    >> >events in time. It does not appear to assert that the position has to be
    >> >zero for time. What was created was space and matter.
    >>
    >> Current Big Bang theory asserts that tme, space, matter and energy all
    >> commenced at the singularity. None of the four entities can exist prior to
    >> the Big Bang event. Time is motion dependent.
    >>
    >> Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
    >> "The answer we should have known about 150 years ago."

    Dick, the Big Bang theory is based on equations that assume projection into
    the past. When the density is allowed to approach infinity time does not
    become zero. I recall that it was 10 to the minus 42 second. This historical
    estimate is totally dependent on the assumption of mathematical regression
    into the past. The results are useful for further research but we can not
    presume to extend this working model to reality. That is a philosophical
    task that requires much discussion and removal of logical conflicts.
    Consequently, this theory establishes only circumstantial evidence, whose
    use depends on our personal worldviews.

    > ***************
    >
    > Further, according to the General Theory of Relativity, time and space
    > had to have a beginning.

    Bert, science can not "prove" a beginning of anything. What do you see in
    that theory that supports a belief that time had to have a beginning?
    Examine its equations and assumptions carefully. It also assumes that the
    speed of light has always been the same. However, evidence is gathering
    that it may have been much faster in the past.

    > If we acc ept both Gen 1:1 and GTR, then it
    > makes good reason to understand t=0 as "In the beginning God created
    > space-time...." Bert M.

    It all comes down to a question of faith in fundamental assumptions. An
    assumption of a beginning for time will require much philosophical
    examination to minimize internal conflicts in our personal worldviews.
    I have found nothing in science or the Bible that establishes with much
    logical force that there was a beginning for time. It can be a useful
    assumption, if one chooses to use it. I find that it creates too many
    additional conflicts in my personal worldview, but I remain open to
    questioning that assumption. Thanks for the feedback.

    Jim Stark

    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 11 2000 - 10:59:05 EST