>>Interesting read, and I could understand it.
>
>What about accepting it? Is there anything specifically that you understand, but not accept as true, or have articulated doubts about?

I do not think I can answer definitively without really studying what is being said. Time and change are so intertwined, IMO, that I do not think you can separate them. Therefore, I am not sure if the point is relevant whether time is a result/consequence of change or vice versa. It does boggle the mind when contemplating if there was ever a "time zero." Emotionally I think most would say yes. Logically, is the answer no?

Just for arguements sake, let's "accept" your premise that time is a consequence of change which I do not think is necessary in this example. Can there be a "time zero" if something has to exist to affect a change in order for time to occur? On the other hand, something must exist to evolve [change]in order to "start the timer". This means the "starter" had to have existed before time zero which effectively moves "time zero" further back.

I think man wants so much to be able to define the beginning of time, they also necessarily needed [had?] to define "who" started the timer. But if someone [or Deity] indeed clicked the timer, who started "his" timer? If no one did then "he" has always existed as has time itself. I do not think we are capable of grasping or accepting the idea that there can be no time zero any more than we can prove nor disprove the existence of a Supreme Being. You either believe or you don't.