I tend to agree with you that time being part of the creation may be an
assumption that man makes. I disagree with you that that assumption does
not build a coherent worldview. Time is part of the physical universe,
nothing would make sense if this were otherwise. But God is not part of the
subject matter of science, therefore God cannot be in time. It is true that
He can make incursions into His creation, witness Jesus, but Triune God
cannot be wholly in time. In addition, Christ made all sorts of miracles
that go contrary with the findings of science. It is true that in science
when we speak of time invariance we are assuming that time is on an infinite
scale. All the conservation laws in physics come from invariances under some
sort of transformation and some of the variables involved are considered to
be on an infinite scale, e.g., conservation of energy is associated with
invariance under time translations, etc.
Hope this helps,
Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: Starkja@aol.com <Starkja@aol.com>
To: alexanian@uncwil.edu <alexanian@uncwil.edu>; asa@calvin.edu
<asa@calvin.edu>
Date: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 4:33 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Time scales
>
>In a message dated 12/15/1999 9:56:52 AM, you wrote:
>
><<God is not part of creation--space, time and everything in it--for the
same
>
>reason that Shakespeare was not in the play "Romeo and Juliet."
>
>
>Moorad
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>
>From: Starkja@aol.com <Starkja@aol.com>
>
>To: asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>; lambert@ldolphin.org
>
><lambert@ldolphin.org>
>
>Date: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 5:25 PM
>
>Subject: Time scales
>
>
>
>>Has anyone considered time scales, such as ordinal, interval, and ratio,
>
>when
>
>>examining science versus Creationists arguments?
>
>>
>
>>It appears that a biblical day was only an ordinal measurement. Were the
>
>>biblical authors concerned about the duration of that time, which would be
>
>>necessary to create an interval scale? My guess is no. Thus, the
>
>>association of a biblical day to a day based on dynamical time would be a
>
>>purely modern choice. A biblical age for the earth would be totally
>
>>dependant on that assumed association.
>
>>
>
>>When we estimate the universe's age using an atomic scale, the scale that
>
>is
>
>>used is really an interval scale. Thus, it would have no true zero point.
>
>To
>
>>my understanding there is no absolute time scale. We can only assume that
>
>>the projected zero point has any meaning. We are free to choose no zero
>
>time
>
>>for an absolute time scale. Why do we talk about a creation for time,
when
>
>>the regression equation it taken to infinite density? The resulting
Planck
>
>>time in not zero and the scale is really only an interval scale. Needless
>
>to
>
>>say this would go counter to the religious assumption that God is beyond
>
>>time. I think it was Augustine who started it. Why do we make such an
>
>>assumption today? It does not help build a coherent world view. Would
not
>
>>an assumption of an infinite time in the past and future lend itself to a
>
>>more coherent world view? "In the beginning" in the Bible refers to
matter
>
>>not time.
>
>>
>
>>Jim Stark
>>>
>Moorad,
>I think you missed my point. What in the Bible places time within the
>creation? I see no biblical evidence. The biblical use of time appears to
be
>purely ordinal in scaling. There is no suggestion of any beginning for
time.
>
>A beginning for time was an assumption by one of our Church fathers. So I
>can only presume that you also assume that time is within the creation. We
>are all free to make what assumptions are seen as necessary to build a
>coherent world view for ourselves.
>