Re: concordism/time

From: Massie (mrlab@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Tue Jan 11 2000 - 11:33:44 EST

  • Next message: gordon brown: "Re: concordism/time"

    James W Stark wrote:
    >
    > ----------
    > >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
    >
    > >
    **********

    Evidence is not amassing that time was faster in the beginning.

    The space-time therom of general relatively forces a begining to time
    and has driven Hawkings to posit such lunacy as is evidenced in "A Breif
    History of Time" to avoid a beginning.

    Bert M



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 11 2000 - 11:39:56 EST