Omphalism

This entire discussion started with a question you raised in Message 137 in thread Biological Evidence Against Intelligent Design. Yet now you say that I started it. And those words "must necessarily" are a complete invention. I was only expressing an opinion, and used "should". So now you seem to be taking an accusatory attitude on the basis of false charges you are making against me. They are making a claim that is quite deliberately exempt from any possibility of being examined by physics. Yet you say it is a physical claim.Perhaps you could explain what you mean by "physical."Edited by nwr, : No reason given.

You did not explain what you mean by "physical" and why you treat the omphalist's claim as a physical one. Well, so do I. But that does not change the fact that they have introduced a radical skepticism about empirical evidence.Edited by nwr, : No reason given.

"Time" is a name we use for a physical property. It does not follow that every use of the word "time" is making a physical claim.

He is claiming that empirical methods for determining time give wrong answers. The reasonable conclusion is that his concept of time is very different from that of the physical time that we ordinarily use.

If your ego requires that you engage in these silly games of oneupmanship, then I will leave you to it.