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