Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheists believe that time exists.

Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2016 4:55:39 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
And they can't prove it.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2016 4:59:20 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 4:55:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
And they can't prove it.

They also cannot prove abiogenesis, but are sure it happened.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2016 5:01:57 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 4:55:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
And they can't prove it.

>wanting a proof for an a priori truth
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2016 5:09:22 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 5:01:57 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/7/2016 4:55:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
And they can't prove it.

>wanting a proof for an a priori truth

What makes it 'priori truth' ?
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2016 5:09:45 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 5:01:57 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/7/2016 4:55:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
And they can't prove it.

>wanting a proof for an a priori truth

What makes time, a 'priori truth' ?
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2016 5:14:47 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 4:59:20 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/7/2016 4:55:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
And they can't prove it.

They also cannot prove abiogenesis, but are sure it happened.
Atheists don't believe that your manufactured gods exist and you can't prove them wrong.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2016 5:15:14 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 5:09:45 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:01:57 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/7/2016 4:55:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
And they can't prove it.

>wanting a proof for an a priori truth

What makes time, a 'priori truth' ?

Time is merely change.

For you to hold any position, you must be able to change your disposition such that you can hold the position you do.

This is change.

Ergo, holding that "time is not an a priori truth" requires time, and thus is false.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2016 5:22:04 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 5:14:47 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/7/2016 4:59:20 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/7/2016 4:55:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
And they can't prove it.

They also cannot prove abiogenesis, but are sure it happened.
Atheists don't believe that your manufactured gods exist and you can't prove them wrong.

I knew you didn't read through my thread about atheists ignoring evidence. It's there at the bottom of my signature there. It's actually quite simple to disprove if you actually look. Atheists don't want to look. It has become dogmatic to them. That's why you reject looking through my material. It would effect your "lack of belief". Of course you already know this.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2016 5:22:35 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 5:15:14 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:09:45 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:01:57 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/7/2016 4:55:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
And they can't prove it.

>wanting a proof for an a priori truth

What makes time, a 'priori truth' ?

Time is merely change.

For you to hold any position, you must be able to change your disposition such that you can hold the position you do.

This is change.

Ergo, holding that "time is not an a priori truth" requires time, and thus is false.

No, I always felt that way. Time's not a priori truth. I haven't changed at all.

I did not change my camera and decades have passed.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2016 5:27:45 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 5:22:04 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:14:47 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/7/2016 4:59:20 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/7/2016 4:55:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
And they can't prove it.

They also cannot prove abiogenesis, but are sure it happened.
Atheists don't believe that your manufactured gods exist and you can't prove them wrong.

I knew you didn't read through my thread about atheists ignoring evidence. It's there at the bottom of my signature there. It's actually quite simple to disprove if you actually look. Atheists don't want to look. It has become dogmatic to them. That's why you reject looking through my material. It would effect your "lack of belief". Of course you already know this.

Yeah, you still haven't proved that your god exists or in fact that any of the other gods exist. Keep trying.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2016 5:39:21 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 5:22:35 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:15:14 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:09:45 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:01:57 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/7/2016 4:55:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
And they can't prove it.

>wanting a proof for an a priori truth

What makes time, a 'priori truth' ?

Time is merely change.

For you to hold any position, you must be able to change your disposition such that you can hold the position you do.

This is change.

Ergo, holding that "time is not an a priori truth" requires time, and thus is false.

No, I always felt that way. Time's not a priori truth. I haven't changed at all.

I did not change my camera and decades have passed.

The point is that it's a change from an agnostic to a positive position.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
VirBinarus
Posts: 323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2016 9:43:21 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 4:55:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
And they can't prove it.

Time is an invention. Humans invented it to help them understand the universe. Inventions aren't proved, just improved upon.
"Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing."
1 thessalonians, 5:11
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2016 9:50:18 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 5:15:14 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:09:45 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:01:57 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/7/2016 4:55:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
And they can't prove it.

>wanting a proof for an a priori truth

What makes time, a 'priori truth' ?

Time is merely change.

For you to hold any position, you must be able to change your disposition such that you can hold the position you do.

This is change.

Ergo, holding that "time is not an a priori truth" requires time, and thus is false.

What if change is illusory?
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2016 10:05:12 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 9:50:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:15:14 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:09:45 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:01:57 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/7/2016 4:55:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
And they can't prove it.

>wanting a proof for an a priori truth

What makes time, a 'priori truth' ?

Time is merely change.

For you to hold any position, you must be able to change your disposition such that you can hold the position you do.

This is change.

Ergo, holding that "time is not an a priori truth" requires time, and thus is false.

What if change is illusory?

That has no more sense than asking "What if words don't mean anything?" The proposition "change does not exist" requires change to propose, as argued above.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2016 10:09:49 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 5:14:47 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/7/2016 4:59:20 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/7/2016 4:55:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
And they can't prove it.

They also cannot prove abiogenesis, but are sure it happened.
Atheists don't believe that your manufactured gods exist and you can't prove them wrong.

Crscent moon gods or non crescent moon gods? How many gods do we have?
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2016 10:10:11 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 9:43:21 PM, VirBinarus wrote:
At 7/7/2016 4:55:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
And they can't prove it.

Time is an invention. Humans invented it to help them understand the universe. Inventions aren't proved, just improved upon.

How exactly can humans improve upon time?
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2016 10:10:56 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 10:05:12 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/7/2016 9:50:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:15:14 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:09:45 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:01:57 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/7/2016 4:55:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
And they can't prove it.

>wanting a proof for an a priori truth

What makes time, a 'priori truth' ?

Time is merely change.

For you to hold any position, you must be able to change your disposition such that you can hold the position you do.

This is change.

Ergo, holding that "time is not an a priori truth" requires time, and thus is false.

What if change is illusory?

That has no more sense than asking "What if words don't mean anything?" The proposition "change does not exist" requires change to propose, as argued above.

Change doesn't exist.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2016 10:15:49 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 10:10:56 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/7/2016 10:05:12 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/7/2016 9:50:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:15:14 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:09:45 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:01:57 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/7/2016 4:55:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
And they can't prove it.

>wanting a proof for an a priori truth

What makes time, a 'priori truth' ?

Time is merely change.

For you to hold any position, you must be able to change your disposition such that you can hold the position you do.

This is change.

Ergo, holding that "time is not an a priori truth" requires time, and thus is false.

What if change is illusory?

That has no more sense than asking "What if words don't mean anything?" The proposition "change does not exist" requires change to propose, as argued above.

Change doesn't exist.
Thanks for giving a real-life demonstration of my point.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2016 11:40:13 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 5:22:04 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:14:47 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/7/2016 4:59:20 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/7/2016 4:55:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
And they can't prove it.

They also cannot prove abiogenesis, but are sure it happened.
Atheists don't believe that your manufactured gods exist and you can't prove them wrong.

I knew you didn't read through my thread about atheists ignoring evidence. It's there at the bottom of my signature there. It's actually quite simple to disprove if you actually look. Atheists don't want to look. It has become dogmatic to them. That's why you reject looking through my material. It would effect your "lack of belief". Of course you already know this.

At 7/5/2016 10:26:43 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Atheists attack Christians and Christianity on here on a daily basis. Religious people are simply desensatised to attacks and bigotry directed towards them.

http://www.debate.org...
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2016 12:02:06 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 4:55:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
And they can't prove it.

Riwaaz, I think most people are happy to work with the presumption that time is a fundamental measure in our universe, without thinking about how they know it's there. It's also true that scientists are keenly interested in how time works, and have in the last century linked it to properties of matter.

But it's not hard to develop your own, empirical understanding of time without assuming any prior knowledge of it. Here's how you can do that.

Imagine two water taps or faucets dripping into buckets at different pitches so you can easily tell one drip from another. Let's call them 'Plip' and 'Plop'.

It doesn't really matter if the drips are happening regularly or occasionally. All you need do is count them. Counting itself is a purely linguistic process. All it requires is a sequence and marker showing where you're up to -- no clock is required.

So now count Plips: Plip-1, Plip-2, Plip-3 and so on... Plips become your 'clock'. You can now measure the rate of Plops per Plip, and decide whether the Plops are regular with respect to 'Plip-time' or sporadic.

Now it could be that compared to ordinary clock-time, the Plips are sporadic while the Plops are regular -- at the moment, we don't know. But as we start correlating Plips and Plops with other periodic events observable in the world, we can find out.

So we've now built an empirical notion of time without having to ever assume it.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2016 12:15:59 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 5:15:14 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:09:45 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:01:57 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/7/2016 4:55:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
And they can't prove it.

>wanting a proof for an a priori truth

What makes time, a 'priori truth' ?

Time is merely change.
False premise, actually ambiguous too.
For you to hold any position, you must be able to change your disposition such that you can hold the position you do.

This is change.
No, this is time. According to your 1st premise, time is merely change, therefore change is merely time.
Ergo, holding that "time is not an a priori truth" requires time, and thus is false.
You simply made a circular argument with semantics. I.e. time is merely change therefore if change occurs then this is time.
Minus the semantics you have just simply reasoned...
Time is merely change so if you have to/or can "change" your position you need time because change requires time because time is merely change.
Circular reasoning.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2016 12:30:52 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/8/2016 12:15:59 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:15:14 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:09:45 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:01:57 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/7/2016 4:55:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
And they can't prove it.

>wanting a proof for an a priori truth

What makes time, a 'priori truth' ?

Time is merely change.
False premise, actually ambiguous too.
For you to hold any position, you must be able to change your disposition such that you can hold the position you do.

This is change.
No, this is time. According to your 1st premise, time is merely change, therefore change is merely time.
Ergo, holding that "time is not an a priori truth" requires time, and thus is false.
You simply made a circular argument with semantics. I.e. time is merely change therefore if change occurs then this is time.
Minus the semantics you have just simply reasoned...
Time is merely change so if you have to/or can "change" your position you need time because change requires time because time is merely change.
Circular reasoning.

No, it's not circular, because time being change is an axiomatic definition.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
dee-em
Posts: 6,451
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2016 12:39:48 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 4:55:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
And they can't prove it.

Why is this directed at atheists?

People (whether theist or atheist) believe that time exists. Why? Because we experience it daily. It separates events. It's what clocks measure. If you don't want to call it time then you are merely playing word games.

What you probably meant to say is that no-one understands the fundamental nature of time. That is true. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, only that we don't have a complete explanation for it. It would be just as absurd to ask for a proof of light or gravity. They exist as observable phenomena. Yet no-one has a complete explanation for gravity or wave-particle duality.

Yours is an obvious and ironic attempt to tar atheists with the same brush as theists. Theists believe in a god, not only without proof, but without a shred of evidence. You want to be able to pipe up with "Look atheists do it too!". Unfortunately there is no comparison. God is not observable or measurable like time, light and gravity. God is taken on blind faith only. You know this, religion readily acknowledges it.
dee-em
Posts: 6,451
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2016 12:47:14 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 4:59:20 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/7/2016 4:55:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
And they can't prove it.

They also cannot prove abiogenesis, but are sure it happened.

Nothing in science can be proved, so asking for proof is inane and just another illustration of your profound ignorance. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis, a possible (probable) explanation of what is observed in nature. It is the best explanation which fits the data and doesn't resort to the useless conjecture of supernatural intervention. Try and understand.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2016 12:49:00 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/8/2016 12:47:14 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/7/2016 4:59:20 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/7/2016 4:55:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
And they can't prove it.

They also cannot prove abiogenesis, but are sure it happened.

Nothing in science can be proved, so asking for proof is inane and just another illustration of your profound ignorance. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis, a possible (probable) explanation of what is observed in nature. It is the best explanation which fits the data and doesn't resort to the useless conjecture of supernatural intervention. Try and understand.

So we don't "know", yet pose a hypothesis. But..we should swap our hypothesis for your unknown hypothesis...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2016 12:54:37 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/8/2016 12:02:06 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/7/2016 4:55:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
And they can't prove it.

Riwaaz, I think most people are happy to work with the presumption that time is a fundamental measure in our universe, without thinking about how they know it's there. It's also true that scientists are keenly interested in how time works, and have in the last century linked it to properties of matter.
Linked it to properties of matter is a false premise. They've linked properties of matter to time. Without ever proving it exists they now claim it's linked to something. Interesting how something non existent in "the world" can now somehow be linked to something existent in the world.

But it's not hard to develop your own, empirical understanding of time without assuming any prior knowledge of it. Here's how you can do that.

Imagine two water taps or faucets dripping into buckets at different pitches so you can easily tell one drip from another. Let's call them 'Plip' and 'Plop'.

It doesn't really matter if the drips are happening regularly or occasionally. All you need do is count them.
This is semantic bs. Counting is simply a semantic way of saying time it.
Counting itself is a purely linguistic process. All it requires is a sequence and marker showing where you're up to -- no clock is required.
Wrong. The dripping of water droplets being counted is exactly the same as a clock , hence you're using a type of clock, regardless of it having consistent intervals.

So now count Plips: Plip-1, Plip-2, Plip-3 and so on... Plips become your 'clock'. You can now measure the rate of Plops per Plip, and decide whether the Plops are regular with respect to 'Plip-time' or sporadic.

Now it could be that compared to ordinary clock-time, the Plips are sporadic while the Plops are regular -- at the moment, we don't know. But as we start correlating Plips and Plops with other periodic events observable in the world, we can find out.
By what evidence do you assert that plips and plops CAN and SHOULD be correlated to anything other than themselves? Hint, it's illusory.
So we've now built an empirical notion of time without having to ever assume it.
Non sequitur.....The assertion that dripping water droplets should be counted and then correlate them to other events that are happening is just another type of "clock". You simply used circular reasoning and assumed it is hidden by using ambiguity.
You created a water dripping clock, claim it isn't equivalent to a clock by saying no clock required, then argued back to a notion of time while actually assuming time. Your conclusion is simply a lie. Time was assumed. Intervals was used. The dripping water was your clock Ruv.
dee-em
Posts: 6,451
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2016 1:00:15 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/8/2016 12:49:00 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/8/2016 12:47:14 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/7/2016 4:59:20 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/7/2016 4:55:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
And they can't prove it.

They also cannot prove abiogenesis, but are sure it happened.

Nothing in science can be proved, so asking for proof is inane and just another illustration of your profound ignorance. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis, a possible (probable) explanation of what is observed in nature. It is the best explanation which fits the data and doesn't resort to the useless conjecture of supernatural intervention. Try and understand.

So we don't "know", yet pose a hypothesis. But..we should swap our hypothesis for your unknown hypothesis...

Creationism is not a scientific hypothesis since it is not derived from observation. It is the opposite of science. You start with a belief and then you filter everything you observe through that belief ignoring or rejecting anything which contradicts it.

Here is the difference between science and faith:

http://www.relativelyinteresting.com...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2016 1:07:10 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/8/2016 1:00:15 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/8/2016 12:49:00 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/8/2016 12:47:14 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/7/2016 4:59:20 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/7/2016 4:55:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
And they can't prove it.

They also cannot prove abiogenesis, but are sure it happened.

Nothing in science can be proved, so asking for proof is inane and just another illustration of your profound ignorance. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis, a possible (probable) explanation of what is observed in nature. It is the best explanation which fits the data and doesn't resort to the useless conjecture of supernatural intervention. Try and understand.

So we don't "know", yet pose a hypothesis. But..we should swap our hypothesis for your unknown hypothesis...

Creationism is not a scientific hypothesis since it is not derived from observation. It is the opposite of science. You start with a belief and then you filter everything you observe through that belief ignoring or rejecting anything which contradicts it.

Here is the difference between science and faith:

http://www.relativelyinteresting.com...

You must not be familiar with James Gates
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2016 1:07:18 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/8/2016 12:54:37 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 7/8/2016 12:02:06 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/7/2016 4:55:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
And they can't prove it.
Riwaaz, I think most people are happy to work with the presumption that time is a fundamental measure in our universe, without thinking about how they know it's there. It's also true that scientists are keenly interested in how time works, and have in the last century linked it to properties of matter.
Linked it to properties of matter is a false premise. They've linked properties of matter to time.
They who? You mean the Deist Albert Einstein? The Christian Max Planck? The Jewish Herman Minkowski?

Skips, could you please tell us what 'spacetime' is, why it's important, and how it relates to mass under General Relativity?

So we've now built an empirical notion of time without having to ever assume it.
The assertion that dripping water droplets should be counted and then correlate them to other events that are happening is just another type of "clock".
Yes, you've absolutely constructed a clock, but without assuming anything about time -- even that it exists. That's the point: with nothing more than observation, counting and correlation, you can construct a clock without importing it from philosophy, or even having the word 'time' in your language. And from this synthetic, 'relative' notion of time, derived entirely from observation and statistics, you can begin to run correlations with other periodic events, and infer a kind of local common time within your shared objective frame.

So time's empirical, which doesn't make our perception of it accurate or absolute.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2016 1:21:42 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/8/2016 1:00:15 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/8/2016 12:49:00 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/8/2016 12:47:14 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/7/2016 4:59:20 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/7/2016 4:55:39 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
And they can't prove it.

They also cannot prove abiogenesis, but are sure it happened.

Nothing in science can be proved, so asking for proof is inane and just another illustration of your profound ignorance. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis, a possible (probable) explanation of what is observed in nature. It is the best explanation which fits the data and doesn't resort to the useless conjecture of supernatural intervention. Try and understand.

So we don't "know", yet pose a hypothesis. But..we should swap our hypothesis for your unknown hypothesis...

Creationism is not a scientific hypothesis since it is not derived from observation. It is the opposite of science. You start with a belief and then you filter everything you observe through that belief ignoring or rejecting anything which contradicts it.

Here is the difference between science and faith:

http://www.relativelyinteresting.com...

Like darwinism?
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...