Creationists V Athiests

[nasheenofteeth]

Like the above post said, there's no evidence for 98% of the bible, and less for God.

If i came on here posting about how the earth was flat I'd get called an idiot.

So yeah, you are wrong, becuase you are arguing (against evolution) which is a fact. You might as well be arguing that the sky isn't blue.

who said I was arguing against evolution your missing my point sir, and you can't tell me that evolution is a fact because on that one I have to take a big laugh some people say that bigfoot and the lock ness monster exist in hence fact... this is what is wrong with the wold today they are taught something is true "fact" and they don't take the time to look at both camps... come on its a big world out there lets not believe everything we hear is stated as fact... lets do some researching on our own, it doesn't even have to be on this subject...

[JT!]

who said I was arguing against evolution your missing my point sir, and you can't tell me that evolution is a fact because on that one I have to take a big laugh some people say that bigfoot and the lock ness monster exist in hence fact... this is what is wrong with the wold today they are taught something is true "fact" and they don't take the time to look at both camps... come on its a big world out there lets not believe everything we hear is stated as fact... lets do some researching on our own, it doesn't even have to be on this subject...

Well this is a thread about creationism / evolution.

Some people say bigfoot and the lockness monster are fact, usually the same kind of people who say creationism is fact. The big difference between those and evolution is that evolution has been proved over and over and over and over again, and anything new that has ever and will ever be found will probably fit the theory of evolution. There is not one shred of evidence for creationism.

What is wrong with the world today is that people are so far deep into their religion that they refuse to open their minds to what is actually the truth.

I personally can't do much research into evolution myself, but then again there's very little research I can do myself on the tides or the moons orbit but we know how they work. But I just believe the people who are intelligent and well educated enough to do that kind of stuff.

[nasheenofteeth]

Well this is a thread about creationism / evolution.

Some people say bigfoot and the lockness monster are fact, usually the same kind of people who say creationism is fact. The big difference between those and evolution is that evolution has been proved over and over and over and over again, and anything new that has ever and will ever be found will probably fit the theory of evolution. There is not one shred of evidence for creationism.

What is wrong with the world today is that people are so far deep into their religion that they refuse to open their minds to what is actually the truth.

I personally can't do much research into evolution myself, but then again there's very little research I can do myself on the tides or the moons orbit but we know how they work. But I just believe the people who are intelligent and well educated enough to do that kind of stuff.

well I agree with you religion does suck in fact its horrible, but on the other hand there is just as much evidence for creationism out there like I said do some research, the human eye is so complex just think about it, ever look at the components that form a single cell its literally just the same as a motor, but like I said earlier doesnt matter how much proof you have......

[JT!]

well I agree with you religion does suck in fact its horrible, but on the other hand there is just as much evidence for creationism out there like I said do some research, the human eye is so complex just think about it, ever look at the components that form a single cell its literally just the same as a motor, but like I said earlier doesnt matter how much proof you have......

There is no evidence for creationism. Me and you just disagree on the definition of 'evidence'. But yeah, you get people running their mouths off about how creationism can be possible, half of it is just BS someone has made up that fits, the rest is BS reasons that evolution can't be possible.

The eye for example is one that a lot of people use. Lets not forget the eye isn't so great. It can only process light, not the rest of the EM spectrum, like microwaves and infrared etc, it's very prone to short and long sightedness and it can be easily damaged. It isn't good in low light, or very bright light. It can't zoom in, it can't really do much at all.

The eye can easily have evolved from what it was originally, a thing that could only detect light or an absence of light. Juts because you don't understand how doesn't mean it's impossible.

Youtube Video -> Original Video

Now watch the first 20 seconds of this:

Youtube Video ->

">

" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> Edited September 18, 2009 by JT!

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

you can't tell me that evolution is a fact because on that one I have to take a big laugh some people say that bigfoot and the lock ness monster exist in hence fact... this is what is wrong with the wold today they are taught something is true "fact" and they don't take the time to look at both camps...

Are you lumping people who know that evolution (something along those lines) are the sort of whackos that believe in the bigfoot and Nessie? Because on that front I 100% agree with JT- those sorts of people are very few and far between but share far more with Religious nuts. And please don't tell me you'd like kids to be taught about creationism in school? If you start teaching that bollocks you may as well teach them that the Holocaust never happened and the 9/11 attacks were gods will.

there is just as much evidence for creationism out there

As JT said, your 'evidence' isn't really evidence but an inability to see how amazing and adaptable life (and evolution) is. There's also a huuuuuge difference between thinking the complexity of life is too complex to occur by itself and accepting 'creationism' which teaches that god made the world in 6 days and that's that. Now I really quite detest the idea of 'God' in any form. At worst it doesn't exist in the minutest form (or can be attributed to something inanimate like FeS) and at best the seeds for life were planted by visiting extraterrestrial beings who planted the seeds for life... which to be fair isn't really that likely.

Finally, I don't see the slightest similarity between a motor and a cell. Except that they're both vaguely round...

Nope. Can't see it myself!

[Al_Fel]

Now I really quite detest the idea of 'God' in any form. At worst it doesn't exist in the minutest form (or can be attributed to something inanimate like FeS) and at best the seeds for life were planted by visiting extraterrestrial beings who planted the seeds for life... which to be fair isn't really that likely.

I think that statement is an insult to humanity. If that's how human life began then how did the alien life come into existence? It makes perfect sense that we evolved over millions of years getting more complex as time goes by.

I don't understand how people who call themselves Christians can worship someone who was a Jew? How can you believe everything that's in a book that doesn't make sense?

[1a2bcio8]

I think that statement is an insult to humanity. If that's how human life began then how did the alien life come into existence? It makes perfect sense that we evolved over millions of years getting more complex as time goes by.

I don't understand how people who call themselves Christians can worship someone who was a Jew? How can you believe everything that's in a book that doesn't make sense?

The thing is with being Jewish is that it is an ethnic religion which you are born into. It's not something you really choose, in its strictest sense. So Jesus was jewish in this sense. I'm unsure how this might be a contradiction for Christians? Jesus obviously didn't follow the Jewish religion although what he said was often wrapped up in the terms of the prevalent religion of his time and place.

Regarding the chaps argument for God based on certain complexities we find in life (human eye, motors, etc.). This is a fair one, on the level of reasoning, I think. Yes, evolution is a way of describing the changes that occur between environment and life but it doesn't explain why there is a potential for life (and eyes and the motors that life can build) present in existence (matter/space-time, etc.) prior to the actual being of life. Nothing explains this with any evidence. Explanations are made but they are all forms of reasoning and to be fair the often have sound logic, although each has assumptions. The point is, nobody actually has a clue why there is a potential for life. We're all basically making noises and in that regard, there isn't much point in getting arsey over the different noises of somebody else. Especially when you realise there's a complete irony when part of the motivation for atheistic noise is the recognition of theist (in the sense of God as an entity only) noise. "Although we both make noises with no definite reference to reality, I claim my noises less like noise, than your noise!"

Also, nobody seems to be able to even consider alternative interpretations of the Bible. Literal and non-literal are both equally treated with suspicion and not each judged on their own merits. However, having read some of what Jesus said and relating it to my own practices in Buddhism/Yoga/Mysiticism (all of which are Godless in the sense of God as an entity), I can tell you the experiences I have had are in line with what some of Jesus has said. I can't comment on all because I have't read all. The point is, this interpretation is open to investigation and confirmation or otherwise. Consequently the non-literal interpretation carries with it room for aspects of scientific investigation. In that sense, people (especially those who incorrectly claim science as an argument against religion) should hold their tongues until they've actually taken the time to properly investigate.

A second irony is that many people who talk of science often don't realise that they do so in a religious way. Science often carries with it a myth that overextends what it does or can say. Science, quite simply, cannot comprehend all of life/existence. Yet the belief exists that it will explain all, thus debunking or illuminating all practices that are not science. Thus we find science as omnipotent and omniscient, just like the typical God as an entity. This simply isn't true and science has its limits.

Edited September 18, 2009 by Ben Rowlands

[totaltrials]

A second irony is that many people who talk of science often don't realise that they do so in a religious way. Science often carries with it a myth that overextends what it does or can say. Science, quite simply, cannot comprehend all of life/existence. Yet the belief exists that it will explain all, thus debunking or illuminating all practices that are not science. Thus we find science as omnipotent and omniscient, just like the typical God as an entity. This simply isn't true and science has its limits.

Belief exisits it will explain all because that's all we have. There's no other way of proving it. There are facts and evidence in Science, that is a good starting point for belief rather than religion that has no evidence or facts.

I wonder if in 1000 years once the earth has been through major disasters that nearly wipes out the human race, a new generation of humans will find an old Harry Potter book and think Voldermort is Jesus and Harry Potter is God, to me, that is exactly have daft the Bible is.

[1a2bcio8]

Belief exisits it will explain all because that's all we have. There's no other way of proving it. There are facts and evidence in Science, that is a good starting point for belief rather than religion that has no evidence or facts.

I wonder if in 1000 years once the earth has been through major disasters that nearly wipes out the human race, a new generation of humans will find an old Harry Potter book and think Voldermort is Jesus and Harry Potter is God, to me, that is exactly have daft the Bible is.

Yeah science is great in its own respect. I wouldn't say otherwise. However, it is limited and its domain is not religion apart from the times when religion oversteps its bounds such as with statements about cosmology (i.e. Galileo). Also, the 'fact' and evidence of religion is in the practice of religion, and consequent experience, not simply the belief. This relates to religion in the way I've continaully tried to indicate. Basically, religion contains myth which is symbolic and teaches one how to come to terms with their environment - it comes from a need to deal with the human condition that carries with it certain problems but also has potentilities, not yet realised. We often watch films or read fiction and underlying those stories is a moral of some sort that can teach us about life. Religion is like but with the addition of a spiritual depth - which basically means truths which are true regardless of where you are or which human you are. There are realisations about the nature of the human condition which we can come to realise but which we do not automatically possess. When we look to the study of mythology, we begin to find evidence for some of what I'm saying on an intellectual level (rather than on a level of direct experience that is). What we find is that religions or myths separated by time and space (differing cultures are differing times), all tend, at their core, to say the same thing. On the surface, they are different (just as different languages can refer to the same things) but fundamentally they all address the same problems and potentials of the human condition. In other words there are human problems which are dependent on time, location and who you are and there are problems or potentials which include all people and at times. Relative problems might be technology or lions and constant (perenial) problems/potentials might be the answer to "what or who am i?" or what gives us the deepest sense of well-being. What's great about the latter is the relative problems drop away once we realise the fundamental nature of our situation.

So in this sense, yeah the bible is like a work of fiction. But comparing it to Harry Potter isn't entirely fair with respect to the depth into which the bible can teach you about life - minus the relative aspects which aren't really appropriate to the present. The rest of your analogy has a degree of fairness to it, however. Taking what you read too literally is to miss the point about the nature of the thing you are reading. Although I can't recall the quote exactly, which is buried in one of my books, Jesus did warn against taking the word (spiritual words, his included) too literally. The words are trying to teach you something to realise, to experience, not to believe in. Unforunately both 'believers' and 'disbelievers' aren't heeding his advice.

Anybody who actually wants the potential of a new way of thinking of religion that dissolves what I believe to be a false argument about religion - god as an entity. You can begin your search by watching some Joseph Campbell on youtube. I sincerely encourage you to do so

Edited September 18, 2009 by Ben Rowlands

[beigemaster]

The thing is with being Jewish is that it is an ethnic religion which you are born into. It's not something you really choose, in its strictest sense. So Jesus was jewish in this sense. I'm unsure how this might be a contradiction for Christians? Jesus obviously didn't follow the Jewish religion although what he said was often wrapped up in the terms of the prevalent religion of his time and place.

Regarding the chaps argument for God based on certain complexities we find in life (human eye, motors, etc.). This is a fair one, on the level of reasoning, I think. Yes, evolution is a way of describing the changes that occur between environment and life but it doesn't explain why there is a potential for life (and eyes and the motors that life can build) present in existence (matter/space-time, etc.) prior to the actual being of life. Nothing explains this with any evidence. Explanations are made but they are all forms of reasoning and to be fair the often have sound logic, although each has assumptions. The point is, nobody actually has a clue why there is a potential for life. We're all basically making noises and in that regard, there isn't much point in getting arsey over the different noises of somebody else. Especially when you realise there's a complete irony when part of the motivation for atheistic noise is the recognition of theist (in the sense of God as an entity only) noise. "Although we both make noises with no definite reference to reality, I claim my noises less like noise, than your noise!"

Also, nobody seems to be able to even consider alternative interpretations of the Bible. Literal and non-literal are both equally treated with suspicion and not each judged on their own merits. However, having read some of what Jesus said and relating it to my own practices in Buddhism/Yoga/Mysiticism (all of which are Godless in the sense of God as an entity), I can tell you the experiences I have had are in line with what some of Jesus has said. I can't comment on all because I have't read all. The point is, this interpretation is open to investigation and confirmation or otherwise. Consequently the non-literal interpretation carries with it room for aspects of scientific investigation. In that sense, people (especially those who incorrectly claim science as an argument against religion) should hold their tongues until they've actually taken the time to properly investigate.

A second irony is that many people who talk of science often don't realise that they do so in a religious way. Science often carries with it a myth that overextends what it does or can say. Science, quite simply, cannot comprehend all of life/existence. Yet the belief exists that it will explain all, thus debunking or illuminating all practices that are not science. Thus we find science as omnipotent and omniscient, just like the typical God as an entity. This simply isn't true and science has its limits.

In your time Ben you have said a number of wise comments/ideas. This one is (IMO) one of the best pieces of text I've read on here and this is coming from someone who has a different world point from you. I hope atheists and Christians (note not "creationists" as a lot of people would like to bundle together, a bit like saying all atheists believe the world is flat because some “scientists” said so) take note of their own limits and intentions.

Edited September 18, 2009 by beigemaster

[1a2bcio8]

Thanks, just a shame it's riddled with mistakes, grammatical and otherwise. It isn't entirely coherrent but I'm too lazy to adjust it

The ideas aren't really mine though, to be honest. For the most part they belong to the writers of books I've read, specifically those who made sense to me.

[Joe O'Connor]

I know people havent posted in here in a while.

But from reading what people have said against Christianity, they obviously havent read a thing about it.

Saying there is no evidence at all is uttter rubbish, there is proof through out the world of what God has done and continued to do.

And the bible is not just random stories, read them and you will find that they can be linked to modern situations.

Cats and dogs cannot interbreed according to evolution right? So what about a zebra and a horse? or a black bird and a thrush? they are so similar to each other yet they dont reproduce with each other.

Face it, evolution is all about random happenings that dont add up. And as people have said about eyes, how can a random act produce an eye that does so much? or produces a brain that can tell a whole body how to work and has a nervous system and sensors for touch, sight, smell and taste.

Go ahead and call me names or what ever, but I know it and you know it

EVOLUTION IS UTTER BOLLOCKS.

People who dont want to follow a religion are either too uneducated on the topic, are stubborn or are afraid to commit to it because they think that they wont be able to have fun.

[ZeroMatt]

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

I know people havent posted in here in a while.

But from reading what people have said against Christianity, they obviously havent read a thing about it.

Saying there is no evidence at all is uttter rubbish, there is proof through out the world of what God has done and continued to do.

And the bible is not just random stories, read them and you will find that they can be linked to modern situations.

Cats and dogs cannot interbreed according to evolution right? So what about a zebra and a horse? or a black bird and a thrush? they are so similar to each other yet they dont reproduce with each other.

Face it, evolution is all about random happenings that dont add up. And as people have said about eyes, how can a random act produce an eye that does so much? or produces a brain that can tell a whole body how to work and has a nervous system and sensors for touch, sight, smell and taste.

Go ahead and call me names or what ever, but I know it and you know it

EVOLUTION IS UTTER BOLLOCKS.

People who dont want to follow a religion are either too uneducated on the topic, are stubborn or are afraid to commit to it because they think that they wont be able to have fun.

Ahahahahahahaha. Proof what God has done? Name one single thing that PROVE's anything of the sort, not just you saying 'it's too complex to have evolved' or 'the Bible says so'.

Zebra's and horses can interbreed (it's called a Zorse or Horbra or Hebra. No, seriously) and I imagine black birds and thrushes could too if they were so inclined. You're just showing your ignorance again of what we've been explaining.

"People who dont want to follow a religion are either too uneducated on the topic, are stubborn or are afraid to commit to it because they think that they wont be able to have fun." Sorry but shut the f**k up. I know far too much on the topic and just thinking about that shite makes me angry. It's has nothing to do with education (let's be honest, you've shown how uneducated you are in science and evolution plenty in this topic alone) or stubbornness or anything else- I don't believe the drivel in the Bible because it has no basis in reality and is quite clearly a bunch of made up, written by humans, fiction. Now I understand that it can be used to apply to modern situations and can guide you to a positive way to live your life (in theory) but to believe the stories it contains actually happened or are based on fact is just crazy.

[manuel]

I know people havent posted in here in a while.

But from reading what people have said against Christianity, they obviously havent read a thing about it.

Saying there is no evidence at all is uttter rubbish, there is proof through out the world of what God has done and continued to do.

And the bible is not just random stories, read them and you will find that they can be linked to modern situations.

Cats and dogs cannot interbreed according to evolution right? So what about a zebra and a horse? or a black bird and a thrush? they are so similar to each other yet they dont reproduce with each other.

Face it, evolution is all about random happenings that dont add up. And as people have said about eyes, how can a random act produce an eye that does so much? or produces a brain that can tell a whole body how to work and has a nervous system and sensors for touch, sight, smell and taste.

Go ahead and call me names or what ever, but I know it and you know it

EVOLUTION IS UTTER BOLLOCKS.

People who dont want to follow a religion are either too uneducated on the topic, are stubborn or are afraid to commit to it because they think that they wont be able to have fun.

I think if you offered this up then this argument would go away ...

I challenge you to find ANY proof that god exists.

and saying evolution is utter bollox makes you just look like a complete moron.

EDIT: Damn too slow again...

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

saying evolution is utter bollox makes you just look like a complete moron.

Quoted for truth... I feel really sorry for you Joe. If you're happy in your Christian world then cool, but I really wish you'd open your eyes instead of closing your mind...

[1a2bcio8]

I know people havent posted in here in a while.

But from reading what people have said against Christianity, they obviously havent read a thing about it.

Saying there is no evidence at all is uttter rubbish, there is proof through out the world of what God has done and continued to do.

And the bible is not just random stories, read them and you will find that they can be linked to modern situations.

Cats and dogs cannot interbreed according to evolution right? So what about a zebra and a horse? or a black bird and a thrush? they are so similar to each other yet they dont reproduce with each other.

Face it, evolution is all about random happenings that dont add up. And as people have said about eyes, how can a random act produce an eye that does so much? or produces a brain that can tell a whole body how to work and has a nervous system and sensors for touch, sight, smell and taste.

Go ahead and call me names or what ever, but I know it and you know it

EVOLUTION IS UTTER BOLLOCKS.

People who dont want to follow a religion are either too uneducated on the topic, are stubborn or are afraid to commit to it because they think that they wont be able to have fun.

Out of interest, do you ever question the validity of your faith? Are you willing to change it in the light of evidence which seemingly goes against it?

The eye example shows a good, reasoned, justification for the existence of a God, in the sense that you mean, but it's not much in the way of evidence. It's certainly not empirical evidence of the kind which usually gives the most reliable knowledge. Why can't what is already within the 'world' be enough to allow what happens to the world? (i.e. life, eyes, etc.). In fact, for this latter idea, there's no burden of proof, unlike god as an entity. What is already there, explains it, as opposed to what we assume is there, in some sense, through only reasoning. Put differently, the most reliable forms of knowledge exist when after observing a situation and reasoning about it, we can refer our reasoning back to the initial situation, in some way, to confirm our reasoning. The concept (reasoning) of God as an entity doesn't contain any reference to the reality we live in and so cannot be checked. Similar to the way in which if, through some analogy, I reason that it's the sleep fairy that makes me incapable of getting up in the morning, I am quite unable to check (observe) in reality that there is some truth to it. The idea may have followed from reality but it's thereafter, quite unable to go back to it. This idea is central to science and what makes it, as yet, the most effective way of being knowledgable about our reality. Although, of course, it has it's limits still. But finally, regarding the idea of the world/existence and its contents being enough for what is produced in the world, we find a more scientific statement. It possesses no unobservable parts, it simply refers to what we see, being both the foundation for its present self and the foundation (in a potential sense) of something else at some other point in time. Similar to the relationship between a seed (technically including the environment) and a flower, which we can all check to confirm. Existence has what it needs to become what it will be and this, I think, we can reason and then check.

Again, this still represents a limited approach to understanding and I remain open to God as an entity, in the light of some respective change. It just doesn't seem that likely, at present, in the same way demons used to be explanations for human disease.

edit: sorry for the incoherrence. I realise my statements aren't entirely clear and I'd like to blame my hangover/general imcompetence

Edited September 21, 2009 by Ben Rowlands

[casualjoe]

I think this topic will be closer to a conclusion after December 21st 2012. It would be lovely if God did exist, we could all go about our day truely happy, doing good for our planet and other people wherever we go in the knowledge that our future is taken care of but the more we learn, the less likely this seems...bollox

[JD™]

I think this topic will be closer to a conclusion after December 21st 2012. It would be lovely if God did exist, we could all go about our day truely happy, doing good for our planet and other people wherever we go in the knowledge that our future is taken care of but the more we learn, the less likely this seems...bollox

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Did you not get the memo?

[JD™]

Did you not get the memo?

Musta missed that. I presumed it must have been one of those "OH EMM GEE THE NUMBERS OF THE DATE MAKE A PATTERN SO SHIT MUST BE ABOUT TO HIT THE FAN" things, but then I realised a couple of things:

• time and numbers are man made and thus can't line up with some cosmological shit to fan interface
• surely it would be december 20th, so it was 12-20-20-12? Rather than 12-21-20-12

[Al_Fel]

I know people havent posted in here in a while.

But from reading what people have said against Christianity, they obviously havent read a thing about it.

Saying there is no evidence at all is uttter rubbish, there is proof through out the world of what God has done and continued to do.

And the bible is not just random stories, read them and you will find that they can be linked to modern situations.

Cats and dogs cannot interbreed according to evolution right? So what about a zebra and a horse? or a black bird and a thrush? they are so similar to each other yet they dont reproduce with each other.

Face it, evolution is all about random happenings that dont add up. And as people have said about eyes, how can a random act produce an eye that does so much? or produces a brain that can tell a whole body how to work and has a nervous system and sensors for touch, sight, smell and taste.

Go ahead and call me names or what ever, but I know it and you know it

EVOLUTION IS UTTER BOLLOCKS.

People who dont want to follow a religion are either too uneducated on the topic, are stubborn or are afraid to commit to it because they think that they wont be able to have fun.

Right so god made these snakes with tiny stumps for what reason? To test you faith maybe?

People who don't want to follow science are either uneducated on the topic, are stubborn or are afraid to commit to it because they think that they will burn in hell.

Give me 1 problem that religion solved.

Musta missed that. I presumed it must have been one of those "OH EMM GEE THE NUMBERS OF THE DATE MAKE A PATTERN SO SHIT MUST BE ABOUT TO HIT THE FAN" things, but then I realised a couple of things:

• time and numbers are man made and thus can't line up with some cosmological shit to fan interface
• surely it would be december 20th, so it was 12-20-20-12? Rather than 12-21-20-12

Now there is a fun topic. Can anyone give me any proof that time exists?

Edited September 21, 2009 by Al_Fel

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Can anyone give me any proof that time exists?

What is time? Time is a word made up by humans to name the concept of 'time' itself. At the base it is a result of consciousness. A rock isn't aware of 'time' yet we are. However, in the absence of our idea of time, things happen and it takes a finite 'time' for anything to happen (a photon to travel from the Sun to the surface of a planet or moss to grow on the rock) but in some ways it requires an 'observer' to experience this delay.

The concept of time is something different though. Time is also the fourth dimension and as such a way of measuring and explaining our Universe. Without us to call what we call time 'time' events would still occur and the finite delays between things happening would still exist. So yeah, time itself as a concept exists but without consciousness to observe, measure and contemplate it the word is meanless.

Time is not a reality but a concept or a measure."

Where's Ben when you need him?!!

[Revolver]

What really screws me up concerning time is the idea that it can travel faster in different places. They say stars bend time, much like they have gravity. I see gravity as a bend in the 3 dimensions - put a few marbles on a sheet, put a cricket ball in the middle, watch the marbles approach the cricket ball... anyway, it's pretty nuts to think if you were closer to the sun, time would pass differently for you, to the observations of an outsider. So, if I lived near the sun, then I would die before someone not living near the sun... I'd age quicker... it's confusing me now!

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

What really screws me up concerning time is the idea that it can travel faster in different places. They say stars bend time, much like they have gravity. I see gravity as a bend in the 3 dimensions - put a few marbles on a sheet, put a cricket ball in the middle, watch the marbles approach the cricket ball... anyway, it's pretty nuts to think if you were closer to the sun, time would pass differently for you, to the observations of an outsider. So, if I lived near the sun, then I would die before someone not living near the sun... I'd age quicker... it's confusing me now!

As was mentioned in the previous thread, you experience the effect every day simply by moving. Depending on your velocity time itself passes differently to if you're stationary. We're talking nanoseconds different if you stayed in London or flew by Concorde to New York (of course that would require time travel to start with anyway but you get the idea) but the point is there is a finite difference in the 'time' experienced by the two observers.