Is this line of thought correct? Was Descardes wrong in "percipimus ergo sum" "?

If time has a beginning then that beginning is a contingency and, according to the Principle of Sufficient Reason, it must have an explanation. This leads directly to the Contingency argument for the existence of a necessary something that is eternal and explained in terms of itself. Either a person must mark the start of time as a brute fact, the existence of an infinitely stretching universe and infinite time as a brute fact, or a god / the Tao / whatever as the explanation. According to PSR you must accept the last one.

Anyways, I think Descartes' "I think therefore I am" is ridiculous. First of all, he accepts a lot as absolutely true, the foundation of his philosophy if looking into foundationalism. He accepted that god exists simply because he thought so and, being a rationalist, believed he was born with that information so it must be true. Same with thinking he exists, so he does. Since he believes we are born with knowledge, he thought that since he believed he exists, he does.

Let us look at how this is wrong through an argument by analogy: I am sure that there is a wall somewhere near you. There are three main things you can believe about this wall:

1. The wall does not exist, which many would deny as true after running into it full speed. But, it must be realized that this is not what is meant by "the wall does not exist". What we mean is that everything we perceive about the wall: The color, the texture, the feel of running into it, etc is all in our minds and it completely subjective. Let us put this to the side.

2. The wall exists because we think it does, and we are born with true knowledge of things. This is where Descartes would stand I am sure. But I will get back to this in a second.

3. The wall exists because it does. We can believe it doesn't, someone can have no idea what a wall is and it will still be real, even though they do not have knowledge of this. This idea stands out from the other two.

Look at 1 and 2 above. Upon study, they actually say the same thing except: Descartes says the wall must be real because he thinks it is. Number 1 states that because the reality of the wall is based on Descartes own perception is precisely why it is not absolutely real.

Upon this very long argument, we can say it is at least valid to label "I think therefore I am" as an unsound argument, although valid.

Time exist as a unit of measure, as a concept. Without time, motion can not exist. How far can anything travel in 0 seconds?

Creation as defined by the context of your question requires motion and therefore time is a prerequisite as well.

"To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. Centuries ago, the man who was—no matter what his errors—the greatest of your philosophers, has stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification.

Whatever you choose to consider, be it an object, an attribute or an action, the law of identity remains the same. A leaf cannot be a stone at the same time, it cannot be all red and all green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A. Or, if you wish it stated in simpler language: You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

Are you seeking to know what is wrong with the world? All the disasters that have wrecked your world, came from your leaders’ attempt to evade the fact that A is A. All the secret evil you dread to face within you and all the pain you have ever endured, came from your own attempt to evade the fact that A is A. The purpose of those who taught you to evade it, was to make you forget that Man is Man."

John Galt

Time is the fourth dimension of our universe and existence. Once you invoke the existence of matter, which has three dimensions, one must necessarily invoke the dimension of time. They are inseparable. The difficulty with time is that it is relative to the observer. This is what Einstein was on about in his relativity theorems.