Let us not forget that all the musings of scientists are cast in the forms
of models, which are mere shadows of the real thing. Perhaps only God knows
what the real thing is and we are all like little children playing in our
sand boxes. Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: glenn morton <mortongr@flash.net>
To: James W Stark <stark2301@voyager.net>
Cc: Massie <mrlab@ix.netcom.com>; asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2000 10:34 PM
Subject: Re: concordism/time
>At 10:58 AM 1/11/00 -0500, James W Stark wrote:
>>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.
>
>Dick and Bert did give you the correct answer to why time and space must be
>considered as one. Even motion of light on a train, as the famous physics
>problem illustrates, shows that space and time are inseparable. The
>distance traveled and the time measured vary for different observers.
>Without space, you can't have time.
>
>However, a question for you. Since you think there is such logical
>conflicts, have you ever had a course in special relativity--ever read a
>mathematical book on general relativity?
>
>>
>>> ***************
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>According to whom? Where is this evidence? Is it from Barry Setterfield? I
>just saw that it is from Dolphin Lambert which means it is from Barry
>Setterfield. I would point you to an article I, Harold Slusher, Tom Barnes
>and Bob Bartman wrote concerning the craziness that Setterfield's views
>would bring. It is
>
>Morton, G. R., Slusher, H. S., Bartman, R. C., and Barnes, T. G., (1983).
>Comments on the Velocity of Light. Creation Research Society Quarterly.
>20:63-65.
>
>Summary: This is a critique of Barry Setterfield's suggestion that the
>speed of light had decreased. If his formulation of the changes were true,
>then there should have been 417 days per year at the time of Christ and the
>earth would have been melted when God created Adam due to the tremendous
>heat generated by the extremely rapid radioactive decay during the creation
>week.
>
>There is no evidence of any of this (and more as outlined in that article).
>And you can't claim that this is an evolutionary article because Slusher
>and Barnes are well known young-earth creationists and when we wrote it, I
>was also a young-earther. This does not boil down to faith as you say.
>Setterfields ideas are crazy.
>
>
>>It all comes down to a question of faith in fundamental assumptions.
>
>No, it all comes down to observational data which clearly shows that time
>and space are inseparable. If time and space were not entangled, no
>cyclotron or linear accelerator would work in the fashion they do.
>glenn
>
>Foundation, Fall and Flood
>Adam, Apes and Anthropology
>http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
>
>Lots of information on creation/evolution
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 12 2000 - 09:13:12 EST