Creationists V Athiests

[Al_Fel]

I can't believe I'm doing this but what if we compared God to time? God could just be a concept.

I really don't believe time exists as most people think it does.

Here's a thought about that experiment where they have two atomic clocks and make one fly around the world and when it gets back its slightly slower than the other one. As far as I know the faster something is travelling the more mass it has. So if you consider the fact that something with more mass needs more energy to move the same distance then this could explain why the atomic clock appeared to be slower.

Does that make sense to anyone?

I really do love stuff like this but I find it hard to remember and store all the scientific information.

[Spider Lad]

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 hope you've been watching BBC4 form 10pm tonight!

[Hannah Shucksmith]

[Adam-Griffin]

I hope you've been watching BBC4 form 10pm tonight!

He's from New Zealand, so i doubt it.

[totaltrials]

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.

This is such a terrible post, it proves the complete lack of understanding regarding the subject.

Evolution didn't just happen over night, it's happened over millions of years, such an uncomprehendable amount of time. If you went and researched some of your retorical questions you would find the answers to them, just because you don't know the answers doesn't mean "EVOLUTION IS UTTER BOLLOCKS".

Evolution is a fact, it's been proven. If there is a God what is the point in evolution, surely it would deem it unnecessary.

[Al_Fel]

[Spider Lad]

He's from New Zealand, so i doubt it.

Maybe that goes some way towards explaining his smal minded outlook.

The "Eye argument" is an old and flawed one.

If the eye is so perfectly formed then why do half the population of the Earth need glasses? I'll tell you why, because it isn't so perfect. In fact it's very badly designed indeed, if you were to subscribe to the idea that it has a designer, which it doesn't.

It's quite a bocth up as a result of a series of adaptations. Still quite a remarkable piece of aparatus, but maybe we think that because we depend on it so much.

The eye didn't simply spring into existence randomly, and evolution doesn't claim that it did.

It is the result of a long line of non-random selection through environmental pressures on survival. Natural selection.

Consider the the idea that an eye with only half the function that you're accustomed to would still be more useful than no eye. Then maybe that an organism with even only slightly better functionality would have a definite advantage when it comes to survival and subsequently breeding and the further spread of such genes into the gene pool that result in the greater frequency of better eyesight...

I could write pages and pages on this and point you to all the EVIDENCE, but I fear you appear to be a "dyed in the wool" creationist and I may be wasting my time.

Edited September 21, 2009 by Spider Lad

[Tomm]

There is not one shred of evidence for creationism.

EVOLUTION IS UTTER BOLLOCKS.

United Atheist Alliance is the only logical name!

There's something weird going on. Everyone is completely indoctrinated by their own beliefs. We're talking about two diametrically opposed views - one has to be wrong. And yet neither side can see any way of accepting the other person's view. It's mind-boggling. I am certainly guilty of this.

When it comes to making a decision based on the arguments of two opposed people, I tend to side with those who are obviously intelligent. When one person's argument simply entails name calling and bizarre logic I think there must be something wrong with that person's reasoning. With that in mind, lol:

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.

Still quite a remarkable piece of aparatus, but maybe we think that because we depend on it so much.

That's an interesting point. When you think about it, there are probably loads of organs that are as complex but you never hear of people talking about the evolution of, say, the pancreas.

[Joe O'Connor]

John 8:47

"Those who belong to God hears what God says. The reason you dont hear is because you dont belong to God"

In other words if you dont accept it you aint gonna see jack.

I believe and I have seen the work of God through out my life, Ive found strength, Ive found hope, love and relief from pain.

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.

I know plenty on the topic, and have heard lots about it, and Im sorry but it still doesnt make sence.

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

Indeed I have questioned my faith and when ever I do, I just end up being proven that Christianity is correct, evolution has never made any sence to me.

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.

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

Watch John Mackay http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mICW7_llfR0 he proves the existance of God through science.

exorcisms for one, nothing but religion can solve that.

On the topic of reptiles. Natural selection states that the largest and strongest animals live. So there are lizzards with no wings and some that have wings, so when the winged lizard was in the process of evolving to have wings, it couldnt fly and was no good at running because of its half formed wings, why did it survive natural selection?

This is such a terrible post, it proves the complete lack of understanding regarding the subject.

Evolution didn't just happen over night, it's happened over millions of years, such an uncomprehendable amount of time. If you went and researched some of your retorical questions you would find the answers to them, just because you don't know the answers doesn't mean "EVOLUTION IS UTTER BOLLOCKS".

Evolution is a fact, it's been proven. If there is a God what is the point in evolution, surely it would deem it unnecessary.

I know that evolution just happend over night, I have knowledge on the topic.

Evolution has not proved anything, and dont use the whole carbon dating thing, because that doesnt even work, all it does is tell you if something is older than something else, it doesnt give an actual date at all. A rock that is supposedly 3.4million years old can only be 100 years old, the age that people get from carbon dating is just a guess.

Maybe that goes some way towards explaining his smal minded outlook.

The "Eye argument" is an old and flawed one.

If the eye is so perfectly formed then why do half the population of the Earth need glasses? I'll tell you why, because it isn't so perfect. In fact it's very badly designed indeed, if you were to subscribe to the idea that it has a designer, which it doesn't.

The eye didn't simply spring into existence randomly, and evolution doesn't claim that it did.

It is the result of a long line of non-random selection through environmental pressures on survival. Natural selection.

Consider the the idea that an eye with only half the function that you're accustomed to would still be more useful than no eye. Then maybe that an organism with even only slightly better functionality would have a definite advantage when it comes to survival and subsequently breeding and the further spread of such genes into the gene pool that result in the greater frequency of better eyesight...

I could write pages and pages on this and point you to all the EVIDENCE, but I fear you appear to be a "dyed in the wool" creationist and I may be wasting my time.

You cant say that the eye is no good, through gene mutation an eye that can draw light in and then interprate what it is seeing is rubbish, the eye is too complex and sensitive for that, and if evolution is real, millions of years ago animals had eyes, so why did they not evolve over that time? and why has not a dogs eye evolved over millions of years to have colour?

And lastly, we all came from single cell organsims (Way back in the begining) that divided to make a complete replica. At what stage did we need to have male and female to reproduce, that is more of a set back than an advantage, would it not be better if humans could divide to reproduce? instead of 9 months of carring the baby and then years of bringing it up.

Have you ever noticed that Athiests and Evolutionist are agressive and abusive against Christians? Of topic I know but its something I have noticed.

Seems they are real defensive and dont like people chalanging them.

Edited September 21, 2009 by Joe O'Connor

[Tomm]

You had me until "exorcisms"

[JT!]

Evolution has never made any sence to me.

I know that evolution just happend over night, I have knowledge on the topic.

Evolution has not proved anything, and dont use the whole carbon dating thing, because that doesnt even work, all it does is tell you if something is older than something else, it doesnt give an actual date at all. A rock that is supposedly 3.4million years old can only be 100 years old, the age that people get from carbon dating is just a guess.

You cant say that the eye is no good, through gene mutation an eye that can draw light in and then interprate what it is seeing is rubbish, the eye is too complex and sensitive for that, and if evolution is real, millions of years ago animals had eyes, so why did they not evolve over that time? and why has not a dogs eye evolved over millions of years to have colour?

And lastly, we all came from single cell organsims (Way back in the begining) that divided to make a complete replica. At what stage did we need to have male and female to reproduce, that is more of a set back than an advantage, would it not be better if humans could divide to reproduce? instead of 9 months of carring the baby and then years of bringing it up.

Have you ever noticed that Athiests and Evolutionist are agressive and abusive against Christians? Of topic I know but its something I have noticed.

Seems they are real defensive and dont like people chalanging them.

Evolution makes no sence to you becuase you have no concept of any of the devices that it needs, one of which is millions and millions of years. Someone is used to the idea that the earth was created 6000 years ago isn't going to be able to conceive the idea of millions and millions of years.

Carbon dating is wrong sometimes, but right most of the time. Plus there's many different ways to date things.

I have aggression towards people who believe in creationism the same way you would if someone came up to you and said your name was Steve. It's just not true and that's not your name, but this guy keeps going on about how your name is Steve and constantly calls you Steve every time he sees you because he read that your name is Steve in a book. He has no evidence that your name is Steve, but you have your birth certificate and ID to show your name isn't Steve but he says that all your ID and birth certificate is fake. Wouldn't you get pissed off?

Evolution isn't something to be debated, it's got nothing to do with opinions, evolution is fact. The problem is is that for religious people to accept that they have to somewhat reject the bible, and some religions have actually done this, and refer to the bible stories as a metaphor.

[Joe O'Connor]

Evolution makes no sence to you becuase you have no concept of any of the devices that it needs, one of which is millions and millions of years. Someone is used to the idea that the earth was created 6000 years ago isn't going to be able to conceive the idea of millions and millions of years.

Carbon dating is wrong sometimes, but right most of the time. Plus there's many different ways to date things.

I have aggression towards people who believe in creationism the same way you would if someone came up to you and said your name was Steve. It's just not true and that's not your name, but this guy keeps going on about how your name is Steve and constantly calls you Steve every time he sees you because he read that your name is Steve in a book. He has no evidence that your name is Steve, but you have your birth certificate and ID to show your name isn't Steve but he says that all your ID and birth certificate is fake. Wouldn't you get pissed off?

Evolution isn't something to be debated, it's got nothing to do with opinions, evolution is fact. The problem is is that for religious people to accept that they have to somewhat reject the bible, and some religions have actually done this, and refer to the bible stories as a metaphor.

Your one of the better ones toward Christians, but others just swear and call me nuts and what not, and at one point in that other thread about this the pulled out a picture of an upside down cross, which is stupid because they said that Christainity was false and then brought out something against me that was part of Christianity being true. It made me laugh.

[Spider Lad]

John 8:47

"Those who belong to God hears what God says. The reason you dont hear is because you dont belong to God"

In other words if you dont accept it you aint gonna see jack.

I believe and I have seen the work of God through out my life, Ive found strength, Ive found hope, love and relief from pain.

I know plenty on the topic, and have heard lots about it, and Im sorry but it still doesnt make sence.

Indeed I have questioned my faith and when ever I do, I just end up being proven that Christianity is correct, evolution has never made any sence to me.

Watch John Mackay http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mICW7_llfR0 he proves the existance of God through science.

exorcisms for one, nothing but religion can solve that.

On the topic of reptiles. Natural selection states that the largest and strongest animals live. So there are lizzards with no wings and some that have wings, so when the winged lizard was in the process of evolving to have wings, it couldnt fly and was no good at running because of its half formed wings, why did it survive natural selection?

I know that evolution just happend over night, I have knowledge on the topic.

Evolution has not proved anything, and dont use the whole carbon dating thing, because that doesnt even work, all it does is tell you if something is older than something else, it doesnt give an actual date at all. A rock that is supposedly 3.4million years old can only be 100 years old, the age that people get from carbon dating is just a guess.

You cant say that the eye is no good, through gene mutation an eye that can draw light in and then interprate what it is seeing is rubbish, the eye is too complex and sensitive for that, and if evolution is real, millions of years ago animals had eyes, so why did they not evolve over that time? and why has not a dogs eye evolved over millions of years to have colour?

And lastly, we all came from single cell organsims (Way back in the begining) that divided to make a complete replica. At what stage did we need to have male and female to reproduce, that is more of a set back than an advantage, would it not be better if humans could divide to reproduce? instead of 9 months of carring the baby and then years of bringing it up.

Have you ever noticed that Athiests and Evolutionist are agressive and abusive against Christians? Of topic I know but its something I have noticed.

Seems they are real defensive and dont like people chalanging them.

You're obviously a very accomplished and learned scientist and I bow before your superiour knowledge.

Yours sincerely,

Daniel Leadbetter BSc.

(Joe, I seriously suggest you actually take the time to go and learn about evolution before you even think of talking about it. You are totally wrong on every point and your total refusal to look at or accept the evidence just demonstrates plain ignorance. I can point you in the direction of literally hundreds of books to read [not just the one ancient book of hand me down tales] and places you can go and observe the evidence for yourself)

[Al_Fel]

Please Joe watch this video. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00h6...win_Didnt_Know/ I'm just asking you to give it a watch and let me know what doesn't add up for you. IF you can find a similar video about creationism then I'd be happy to watch that too and give you my opinion. I'm not being nasty and I'm not calling you any names.

A thought has just occurred to me though I'm not sure if you'll be able to watch it with being from New Zealand. It might be a UK only thing.

[Spider Lad]

Creationists are like history deniers, holocaust deniers if you will. In fact the evidence in the case for evolution is far stronger than that that remains for the holocaust.

Evolution is plain fact, the evidence is there for you to see should you decide to pull your head out of the sand.

I don't care about your religion and I haven't even mentioned it, Joe. All I care about is the truth.

[Joe O'Connor]

Please Joe watch this video. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00h6...win_Didnt_Know/ I'm just asking you to give it a watch and let me know what doesn't add up for you. IF you can find a similar video about creationism then I'd be happy to watch that too and give you my opinion. I'm not being nasty and I'm not calling you any names.

A thought has just occurred to me though I'm not sure if you'll be able to watch it with being from New Zealand. It might be a UK only thing.

Yeah I cant see it.

Watch some stuff from John MacKay, he is a fully qualified scientist who says creation is possible through science.

Creationists are like history deniers, holocaust deniers if you will. In fact the evidence in the case for evolution is far stronger than that that remains for the holocaust.

Evolution is plain fact, the evidence is there for you to see should you decide to pull your head out of the sand.

I don't care about your religion and I haven't even mentioned it, Joe. All I care about is the truth.

If you can give me a link to some where I will gladly read it and tell you what I think of it, but so far from all the programs I have seen, and things Ive read, it makes no sence. Im open to your suggestions, but I can see any proof of evolution being real.

Put it this way, you would believe something if you saw it first hand wouldnt you?

I have seen Gods work first hand, but I have never seen Evolution at work.

have you seen the work of Evolution first hand? No, because it takes Millions of years for it to happen.

[JT!]

Yeah I cant see it.

Watch some stuff from John MacKay, he is a fully qualified scientist who says creation is possible through science.

If you can give me a link to some where I will gladly read it and tell you what I think of it, but so far from all the programs I have seen, and things Ive read, it makes no sence. Im open to your suggestions, but I can see any proof of evolution being real.

Put it this way, you would believe something if you saw it first hand wouldnt you?

I have seen Gods work first hand, but I have never seen Evolution at work.

have you seen the work of Evolution first hand? No, because it takes Millions of years for it to happen.

No scientist is ever going to say that creationism is possible, but then again it depends on what you mean by creationism. Even Richard Dawkins has said that 'we could have been designed intelligently' but when most people talk about that they're talking about right back to singular celled organisms. We know for fact how we developed from the very basic life to today. We just don't really know how non life turned into life. But there's nothing wrong with not knowing.

I'll watch some John MacKay vids later on tonight.

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

I know plenty on the topic, and have heard lots about it, and Im sorry but it still doesnt make sence.

Quite obviously you don't know squat on the topic since anything you say against science and evolution has been shot down in an instant. The Zorse being an obvious example.

exorcisms for one, nothing but religion can solve that.

That's a facepalm moment right there. Are you serious?!

I know that evolution just happend over night, I have knowledge on the topic.

Your knowledge is that f**king book again isn't it? Sigh.

Evolution has not proved anything, and dont use the whole carbon dating thing, because that doesnt even work, all it does is tell you if something is older than something else, it doesnt give an actual date at all. A rock that is supposedly 3.4million years old can only be 100 years old, the age that people get from carbon dating is just a guess.

Once again you clearly have no idea what carbon dating is, the science behind the dating (carbon or otherwise) or anything remotely logical because you're blinded by that f**king book.

Have you ever noticed that Athiests and Evolutionist are agressive and abusive against Christians? Of topic I know but its something I have noticed.

Seems they are real defensive and dont like people chalanging them.

It's not a defense thing, it's an anger at the unbelievable stupidity and ignorance of those who believe in such utter drivel. As I've said before, religion is fine if you use it to to do good in your life or whatever but to believe the literal meaning of the stories is simply short sighted.

but others just swear and call me nuts and what not

.

Watch some stuff from John MacKay, he is a fully qualified scientist who says creation is possible through science.

John MacKay quite clearly isn't a qualified scientist (well, maybe a sports scientist or something) if he's supporting creationism. Particularly if he uses excorcism as evidence.

I have seen Gods work first hand, but I have never seen Evolution at work.

have you seen the work of Evolution first hand? No, because it takes Millions of years for it to happen.

1) You really haven't seen gods work first hand. All the miracles you've seen at christian camp? Yeah they certainly don't count. Funny that you've been exposed to several real life miracles when the rest of the 6.7 billion people on the planet have never seen anything.

2) You can't really see evolution first hand as such, correctly as you say, because it takes too long. However, there is so much proof that the Earth isn't 6000 years old I don't know where to begin. Actually, here's one obvious one; riddle me this Mr O'Connor... if the earth was created by god 6000 years ago, at what point in those 6000 years did dinosaurs appear, reign on the Earth for ~160 million years then die off to make way for mammals? I don't remember seeing them mentioned in the bible. Funny that. You'd think it might've mentioned that, wouldn't you?

[Joe O'Connor]

1) You relly haven't seen gods work first hand. All the miracles you've seen at christian camp? Yeah they certainly don't count. Funny that you've been exposed to several real life miracles when the rest of the 6.7 billion people on the planet have never seen anything.

2) You can't really see evolution first hand as such, correctly as you say, because it takes too long. However, there is so much proof that the Earth isn't 6000 years old I don't know where to begin. Actually, here's one obvious one; riddle me this Mr O'Connor... if the earth was created by god 6000 years ago, at what point in those 6000 years did dinosaurs appear, reign on the Earth for ~160 million years then die off to make way for mammals? I don't remember seeing them mentioned in the bible. Funny that. You'd think it might've mentioned that, wouldn't you?

The majority of people that havent seen, havent seen due to lack of faith. You say that you've never seen it and you dont believe, I have seen it and I believe. See how that works?

You have mixed bible dates with evolution dates there mate, christianity says the world is 6000 years old and evolution says dinosaurs were around millions of years ago.

Whos to say that they were originaly called dinosaurs? They could of been called lizards or reptiles. And as for how they die, foot prints of dinosaurs and people have been found running in the same direction, so I think that the way they died is Noahs flood.

No doubt you will disagree, but hey what do I care?

[Hendrix]

The majority of people that havent seen, havent seen due to lack of faith.

Which is utter balls.

I've seen poor people be given chances, and people on the edge of dying somehow get better. I've thought to myself one night 'if only that would happen', then a few days later that exact thing happen.

I don't belong to a religion as such, but I believe that in the end there is something more - and that there is something up there, but I'm just not sure what.

I do believe in evolution, in-fact, I believe in it strongly. Especially seeing as there's proof of it existing all over the planet!

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

You have mixed bible dates with evolution dates there mate, christianity says the world is 6000 years old and evolution says dinosaurs were around millions of years ago.

Which is what I said? Your book doesn't take account for those 160 million years because the humans who wrote it weren't aware of their existence at the time. Even though they could make up some pretty impressive stories about floods and diseases etc. without the knowledge of dinosaur fossils etc. there was no way they could've dreamt them up. Ah well, just another scientific fact you guys have to ignore in order to believe...

so I think that the way they died is Noahs flood.

Did you really just say that? Sorry to piss on your bonfire but if that's the story you're going with, how come Noah didn't save two of every single species of dinosaur as well when the flood came? Oh wait, is it because Noah never existed? Or because there was no flood? Or maybe because the dinosaurs died off millions of years before a human ever evolved who could've even possibly made a boat in the event of a non-existent flood? Although if he had they would've just eaten all the other animals and Noah. Which would've meant that only the dinosaurs were left and humans would have to have evolved once again as science intended... When did you say this flood was? You may be on to something...

I'm sorry but I really can't believe how stupid you're making yourself sound.

[1a2bcio8]

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.

Awesome description, Dave. Very concise

As I understand it, time is basically as you say. It relates to actual events but the word represents the way in which we have conceptualized (humanized?) those events. Like all language really. More specifically though, time is the additional fourth dimension or expression of the three dimensions of space. However, and most confusingly, in a sense, time doesn't really exist. This is the sense that it is mostly commonly conceived and also, potentially in the sense that the concept of God is misunderstood. This is also in the sense that required Einstien to change the way we think of time in order to change the newtonian model of physics to the model of relativity. I was thinking about this and I think the proper and improper conceptions of time can be illustrated by a diagram:

The square represents a less accurate conception of time and is the one assumed by people in general and the older conception of physics (Newtonian). It suggests that, as a dimension time is like an entity. Time, like the three-dimensions of space, exists somewhat independantly of those three-dimensions. Like them, it is a point and thus, in their absence, it still exists. Please forget the obvious problem with this diagram that if the other three points (spatial) are not present then really the fourth (time) shouldn't, given their interconnectedness. What's important is the misconception of seeing time as something which exists per se, similar to, say, physical matter.

Our Triangle on the other hand, doesn't show time as something which actually exists in the way that the three spatial dimensions do. Time here actually represents the behaviour of those first three-dimensions. Time in this sense, is not something that really exists but is instead a human description of the relative behaviours of the three dimensions - what are all the separated forms of matter doing relative to each other over a three-dimensional space? More specifically, time is simply a description of the consistent movement of matter through 'matter-less' space. What is a clock other than simply the consistent behavioural expression of the matter that composes it? We can especially understand this if we remove our spatial dimensions (the three dimensions which are both matter and the absence of matter). In this situation, with no interaction of matter with 'matter-less' space (no three dimensions) there is no possiblity of time. To put it more succinctly, time is simply an expression of space similar to the way my anger is an expression of me but my anger is not independent of me. You cannot find my anger separate to me. Yet we often conceive of time as something which can be found. Einstien understood this. And the physical model of relativity is dependent on this understanding of the nature of time. It's the reason why Einstein describes space and time as space-time. The former description separates the inseparable. It creates the impression of time as an entity (space AND time. Much the same way I think God is conceived. People aren't able to recognise God as an expression of what already is. They have to separate God from the appropriate source because our talking of God carries with it the implication of a separateness. We say "God does this or that because of language habits are thus so and not very good for saying that something is both the acter and acted upon. As I think Alan said, God is like the misconception of time or the misconception that because the word anger, in language, exists separately to the word that refers to me (Ben - "he has anger" like he has a trials bike). God as an entity is, in my current opinion, a spook of language.

We probably come to this confusion due to a general misunderstanding of language and what general semantics would call a confusion of the levels of abstraction. Levels of abstraction describe the points at which we interpret events. The first level being our basic wordless perception (sight, sound, etc.). The second level being our initial labels (basic words like dog or bike) for the first level. The third level is our labels for collections of the initial labels (concepts like anger, driving, etc. or groups like england, shops, etc.). The fourth level being our concepts about concepts or groups of groups and so on. The levels of abstraction keep going (they are open to infinity) but the rules change as we move through them, relative to their relationship with the lower levels of abstration. Without going into detail, if we confuse the rules of one level with another, we impose qualities that are appropriate to one level of abstraction to a level of abstraction where they are not. Kind've like trying to apply the rules of riding a trials bike onto the rules of driving a car. Thus, we get confusion and try to think about things and act toward things which may not even exist in the context we find ourselves in (like attempting to bunnyhop up a wall in a car).

I haven't been completely fair in my description. Nor have I included all the relevant details. To do so, would take me too long and would probably just confuse what is often a novel idea to people - that's if it doesn't already. But please, ask me to elaborate if you don't understand. It took me a decent time to get my head around these matters and I'm still confused.

edit: Can people actually see the diagram properly?

edit 2: An additional analogy for the relationship of time (space-time) is the relationship between me and my parts (mereology). When I die and my body falls to pieces, are the parts which made me still "Ben"? (molecules and atoms) Or are the parts only "Ben" when they exist in a certain sturcture or relative relationship to one another? Making up dynamic structures such as a brain, a heart, etc. which again in their relationship make up a human. Human words and ideas describe the presence of certain relationships between parts. This is also probably an reason the idea of a soul. Because we imagine an independent self, arising from our names or other labels, existing independently of the structures which allow for any use of a name or label.

Edited September 22, 2009 by Ben Rowlands

[totaltrials]

Did you really just say that? Sorry to piss on your bonfire but if that's the story you're going with, how come Noah didn't save two of every single species of dinosaur as well when the flood came? Oh wait, is it because Noah never existed? Or because there was no flood? Or maybe because the dinosaurs died off millions of years before a human ever evolved who could've even possibly made a boat in the event of a non-existent flood? Although if he had they would've just eaten all the other animals and Noah. Which would've meant that only the dinosaurs were left and humans would have to have evolved once again as science intended... When did you say this flood was? You may be on to something...

I'm sorry but I really can't believe how stupid you're making yourself sound.

That really made me laugh . I'd like to add more but I think Monkeyseemonkeydo is doing it all for me.

[MadManMike]

That really made me laugh . I'd like to add more but I think Monkeyseemonkeydo is doing it all for me.

Likewise, he's saying what I'm thinking and is wording it much better than I could lol

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Edit to try to put an end to the dinosaurs and human footprints drivel:

The Paluxy River ‘man prints’ may resemble human footprints superficially, but they lack the anatomy of real human footprints. Furthermore, dinosaurs and humans are of very different size and weight, but in the Paluxy River, tracks made by both dinosaurs and supposed humans are sunk to the same depth in the rock, which suggests that both types were made by creatures of the same general weight. In the same way, the distances between footfalls are spaced the same distance apart, showing that they were made by creatures with similar stride lengths.

The creationist explanation for how the two sets of tracks are found together does not quite match the scenario they propose. The creatures who made the tracks were supposed to have been running from the rising waters of the Great Flood. However, there are several thousand feet of water-deposited sedimentary rock beneath the footprints and several thousand feet on top of them, both of which ought, according to creationist geology, have been deposited by the waters of the same Flood the creatures were fleeing. To have produced this sequence, the base rock would have to be deposited by an early ‘high tide’ of the Flood, which then receded long enough for the dinosaurs and humans to run across the valley and leave their tracks, subsequently covering them with a tidal wave that sealed them with a layer of mud, without damaging them. This sequence would have been repeated on numerous occasions, as the dinosaur and ‘human’ tracks appear in a number of superimposed layers. The biggest problem with this, of course, is the question of where the creatures had remained hidden during the early stages of the universal flood if they were rushing to higher land later. But logic never got in the way of religious dogma…

Love that final sentence .