How would you evolutionists explain this?

Hmmm....I'm doing great with the quote deal as all can see.

A guide to using the UBB codes can be found at: A link to this guide can always be found to the left of the text window into which you type messages, it's called *UBB Code is ON.To use the regular quote: This will end up looking like this:

quote:

---

All the text you're quoting...

---

There's also a shaded quote: This will end up looking like this: --Percy

Does time exist ... or is it just a convenient reference
frame for our method of perception?

If you have chosen to believe in God, then that's
fine.I don't think you'll find many here who's intent is to
disprove or discredit the concept and/or belief in God.If, on the other hand, you believe that the Bible is the
literal truth you may have a lively discussion on your hands.ToE is compatible with a God-created universe. It just depends
what you believe He created.

P1 - Time was created in the big bang and therefore did not pre-exist the big bangP2 - The term 'pre-exist' is a nonsensical term when no time is presentConc - Therefore, there is no such thing as 'pre-existing the big bang.'It works both ways..hhmmm___________________
Asgara"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Platoedited - forgot signature[This message has been edited by Asgara, 06-05-2003]

Well first off mr question marks some evolutionists believe that life is inevitable.Like me.I think that you MUST exist.By some law of nature that forces life to evolve from pure nothingness alone.But even though I believe in this evolution would crush the "god" theory anyway so I'm no Christian.You may have also caught yourself in a lie when you say energy wasn't created.If it was'nt created then your "god" sure did'nt create it.------------------
The above statement was 99.9% likely to be entirely false.

interesting Question. and I like it However I can ask the same of you... where did your God come from?

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]

This premise is untrue. Time is. Period. The Big Bang is simply the origin from which we arbitrate our relative temporal observations. It is the convergence of all of our temporal measurements into the past, which so happen to converge because of our uniform motion with respect to eachother.If you imagine an ordinary x-y graph, where the x and y axes intersect, at the coordinates (0,0), is the graph's origin. In a parallel analogy, universal time then is the measure of distance from any point on the graph to the origin. Nothing "precedes" the origin on this graph in this sense, because the distance between any point on the graph and the origin will always have a positive value. The past is a measure of distance from a point on the graph to the origin. The present, then, is a threshold of motion, with each persently existing thing moving uniformly away from the origin in all directions -- this is where cosmologists contrived the notion of an expanding universe. The uniformity of motion makes time appear constant and linear, but General Relativity has taught us that these are only appearances.Furthermore, there is no point where our graph can be said to "begin" since it extends infinitely in all directions. The origin (0,0) is simply where we choose to begin, and in fact that is how it acquired the coordinate label. Thus the notion that time was "created" at the Big Bang is erroneous.If you imagine space-time as a flat graph (as physicists frequently do in order to conceptualize space-time curvature resulting from gravity), then the Big Bang is the origin of our graph, and the past is a measure of distance from a point on the graph to the origin. Your premise presumes a erroneous unidirectional linear conceptualization of time, and instead time is better conceived as planar.Blessings,::

You know, I actually understood everything you said ae.It made perfect sense to me...but then again, maybe it wasn't that difficult to understand in the first place... no matter, it was a well thought out and written post. Thanks, ae!And welcome.

::,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)

It appears constant in that I can define specific, regular, rhythmic intervals that are invariant between all observing reference frames which are moving uniformly to the one in which I defined them. It appears that 24 hrs is an absolute interval independant of reference frames because you and I and everyone else are moving in motion that is uniform enough to create that appearance. IOW, the differentials in velocity that would reveal the relative nature of time, and that time is not constant, are not casually experienced by any human observers, and as a result it appears that a second to you is equal to a second to me. Of course, I went on to say that General Relativity has taught us that these are only appearances. And I would agree with you. I think I must work on formulating my thoughts clearer in the future because I don't see how what I said led you to believe that I would disagree with these statements of yours. Sorry for the confusion.Blessings,::

::,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.

Alright, I see where I could have phrased my statements a bit clearer.Glad we're on the same page. Blessings,::