No Time, No Age.

[expos4ever]

You are stuck in the human-centric perspective.

I don't understand. Are you saying that there is not a consensus that time is in fact, "real"?

BTW, I quickly looked up the "time is an illusion" comment from Einstein. It was made to a grieving widow and it is possible, Mr. Einstein was taking poetic license in this comment in his efforts to soothe this woman.

I really doubt very much that this notion that time is not a "real" part our world has any significant buy-in from the relevant experts.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Time is only relevant to those who are finite.

 

[expos4ever]

The would-be "experts" have changed there story all down through the ages, and there is only one Expert that remains the same, and only One I am concerned with.

I suggest this is misleading. Those who are skeptical of science often make this argument. However, I suggest the reality is that the task of understanding nature is complex and necessarily evolutionary in nature. In other words, given the difficulty of the task, we should expect that scientific models of world evolve and change over time. And, in fact, I suggest your comment is particularly misleading in the sense that you imply that scientists are continually tossing out the accomplishments of their forefathers and starting over. Not true: much such change is refinement, not radical rework. And while there are indeed "revolutions" (e.g. relativity, quantum) these do not suggest that earlier theories were the work of incompetent people, or that there is something wrong with science. Instead, technology improves enabling more precise measurements. If these new measurements require a revolution in theory, so be it. But the scientific method (or scientists) are not to blame.

 

[ScottA]

You don't care that they undermine your position?

No, a few radicals to not equal a community in debate. But, a nice attempt to move the goalposts there.

Who then would you defer to for factual statements about science?

If find your use of that capitonym to be intellectually dishonest, as science does not study time-with-a-capitol-T.

My position cannot be undermined.

I would refer one to rise up in the morning, to go to the window for their weather report, and to stay awake during decision making. As opposed to believing in those who change there story as often as a fad diet.

This is not their study. Please tell them they can continue not to capitalize unless at the beginning of a sentence or in a title, without me thinking they are dishonest. I would never.

 

[ScottA]

Well we disagree on what the Bible says in respect to this. I believe the Scriptures teach that creation - including the whole package of space, time, and matter - will not "pass away" but rather be redeemed and restored. We can discuss the relevant texts if you wish.

No need. We need only understand the meaning of a "new" [earth]. I'm clear on that.

 

[ScottA]

I suggest this is misleading. Those who are skeptical of science often make this argument. However, I suggest the reality is that the task of understanding nature is complex and necessarily evolutionary in nature. In other words, given the difficulty of the task, we should expect that scientific models of world evolve and change over time. And, in fact, I suggest your comment is particularly misleading in the sense that you imply that scientists are continually tossing out the accomplishments of their forefathers and starting over. Not true: much such change is refinement, not radical rework. And while there are indeed "revolutions" (e.g. relativity, quantum) these do not suggest that earlier theories were the work of incompetent people, or that there is something wrong with science. Instead, technology improves enabling more precise measurements. If these new measurements require a revolution in theory, so be it. But the scientific method (or scientists) are not to blame.

You have made your self clear, clearly human-centric.

 

[expos4ever]

You have made your self clear, clearly human-centric.

This is clearly a dodge. I provided a characterization of the nature of how scientific models evolves over time. Are you disputing anything specific in my post?

 

[Hieronymus]

Scott, i can see you have spent a lot of time on this subject.

 

[Davian]

My position cannot be undermined.

The unfalsifiable cannot be falsified, I'll give you that. It also of no scientific significance.

I would refer one to rise up in the morning, to go to the window for their weather report, and to stay awake during decision making. As opposed to believing in those who change there story as often as a fad diet.

They change it to make it more accurate, unlike theism, with its thousands of religions, denominations, sects, and millions of personal theologies.

This is not their study.

Indeed. They are doing science, not religion.

Please tell them they can continue not to capitalize unless at the beginning of a sentence or in a title, without me thinking they are dishonest. I would never.

No, it was your intellectual dishonesty that was on the table, such as when you alluded to Einstein for support of your religious claim.

 

[ScottA]

I don't understand. Are you saying that there is not a consensus that time is in fact, "real"?

No, that much is obvious. I was making the point that you were and are only looking at things for the human perspective...which is no way to understand the real issues.

BTW, I quickly looked up the "time is an illusion" comment from Einstein. It was made to a grieving widow and it is possible, Mr. Einstein was taking poetic license in this comment in his efforts to soothe this woman.

I really doubt very much that this notion that time is not a "real" part our world has any significant buy-in from the relevant experts.

Science has its own issues, but even the idea that time, space, and matter should perhaps be looked at differently, is simply a move in the right direction. There's hope that their studies will actually reveal the truth.

 

[ScottA]

The unfalsifiable cannot be falsified, I'll give you that. It also of no scientific significance.

They change it to make it more accurate, unlike theism, with its thousands of religions, denominations, sects, and millions of personal theologies.

Indeed. They are doing science, not religion.

No, it was your intellectual dishonesty that was on the table, such as when you alluded to Einstein for support of your religious claim.

Your stereo-typical idea of lumping all matters of God into "religion" has forested you in. Honestly. In case you hadn't noticed, I'm the one with the chainsaw.

 

[ScottA]

This is clearly a dodge. I provided a characterization of the nature of how scientific models evolves over time. Are you disputing anything specific in my post?

No, and you missed the point of my comment: Your post made your position clear...you are all about what any of this subject means from a human perspective. So, thank you for your contribution, but it is only the smallest part of the subject...and not the point at all.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

I suggest this is misleading. Those who are skeptical of science often make this argument. However, I suggest the reality is that the task of understanding nature is complex and necessarily evolutionary in nature. In other words, given the difficulty of the task, we should expect that scientific models of world evolve and change over time. And, in fact, I suggest your comment is particularly misleading in the sense that you imply that scientists are continually tossing out the accomplishments of their forefathers and starting over. Not true: much such change is refinement, not radical rework. And while there are indeed "revolutions" (e.g. relativity, quantum) these do not suggest that earlier theories were the work of incompetent people, or that there is something wrong with science. Instead, technology improves enabling more precise measurements. If these new measurements require a revolution in theory, so be it. But the scientific method (or scientists) are not to blame.

It will be nice when our technology will be advanced enough to look into reality deep enough to find evidence enough to suggest to scientists that God does exist.

 

[Davian]

Your stereo-typical idea of lumping all matters of God into "religion" has forested you in.

I have only followed to where you have led me.

Honestly. In case you hadn't noticed, I'm the one with the chainsaw.

Cool. I'll wait to see if you ever figure out how to put gas in it and start it up.

 

[Loudmouth]

There must be a thousand places in the Bible that reference time, or require time to make sense.
Seems pretty adventurous for a Christian to deny time.

Exactly.

Jesus rose from the dead after 3 days? Can't be so!!!! Time doesn't exist!!!!

 

[Loudmouth]

You have missed the point. It doesn't matter what the articles say, it simply shows the scientific community in debate, being unsure and unqualified to make factual statements about Time.

But you think you are qualified?

 

[ScottA]

But you think you are qualified?

I am.

 

[Davian]

I am.

In your opinion, is there anything that you are not qualified to make factual statements about?

 

[Larniavc]

No, it was taken out of context. And now you have done the same thing. Get real.

Really?

Be a man and admit that you have been caught out.

 

[ScottA]

Really?

Be a man and admit that you have been caught out.

I stand by my statements, and I was very clear about what I did and did not do. Nothing has changed. Buzz off.