How would you evolutionists explain this?

Hmmm... let me try this with cucumbers.
(I'm borrowing your syllogisms, Jeptha.)Syllogism 1.
------------
P1: If cucumbers 'caused' the big bang they would have had to pre-exist the big bang.
P2: Time was created in the big bang and therefore did not pre-exist the big bang.
Conclusion: Therefore, cucumbers pre-existed time.Syllogism 2.
------------
P1: Cucumbers pre-existed time.
P2: The term 'before' is a nonsensical term when no time is present.
Conclusion: Therefore, there is no such thing as 'before cucumbers.'Can you see that if cucumbers do exist and there is no 'before cucumbers,' then it is quite logical to state that they always were?All jocularity aside: your reasoning is just plain silly Jeptha, you should be ashamed.Cheers.Afterthought: in my fridge there is a cucumber which, by the looks of it, I am tempted to say has always existed.[This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 07-24-2003]

::,You said:
"The uniformity of motion makes time appear constant and linear [...]"How exactly does time appear constant to you? Can you somehow measure the 'speed' of time? What is it expressed in? Seconds per second? Per second of what? Meta-time? And how fast does meta-time flow? Is meta-time constant? Is there a meta-meta-time?Your seemingly innocent statement raises more questions than it provides answers. The notion of the 'flow of time' is problematic in that it implies an infinite regression of meta-times, each with its own contribution to one and the same problem. My conclusion would be that the flow of time is an illusion.It is because of the irreversibility of the total sum of events happening in the universe that we experience an arrow of time. We experience one total quantum state of the universe, then we experience the next, then the next, and the next, and so on and so forth. To attribute uniformity (or acceleration, or even deceleration) to this succession of states is meaningless, because the succession doesn't take time. It can go one better: it defines time.How about it? Take your time. (Nudge-nudge, wink-wink)

::,If you had said that time appears constant between reference frames moving at moderate (i.e. non-relativistic) speeds with regard to each other, I would have understood and agreed immediately.But I thought you meant that (the flow of) time appeared constant for an observer without reference to anything else, which is obviously nonsense.When I explain this to myself (as I frequently need to do) I always liken our (illusory) experience of 'time as a flow' with that of sitting in a boat on a river, in a fog so thick that you can't see either shore. Because you have no way of seeing anything else than the water around you, you have no idea of how fast you are floating through the landscape. To know how fast you float you would need meta-river, i.e. the shores. Time as a flow would require meta-time to measure its rate of flow. And meta-time requires... well, you get the picture.Cheers.