• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The first creature could not have come into being by random chance. It is impossible.

Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
muhammad_isa said:
No ..

Defining time in a manner applicable to all fields without circularity has consistently eluded scholars.
...
In physics, time is used to define other quantities, such as velocity, so defining time in terms of such quantities would result in circularity of definition.

Time in physics is operationally defined as "what a clock reads". This operational definition of time, wherein one says that observing a certain number of repetitions of one or another standard cyclical event constitutes one standard unit, such as the second, is useful in the conduct of both advanced experiments and everyday affairs of life.

The operational definition of time does not address the fundamental nature of time. Investigations into the relationship between space and time led physicists to define the spacetime continuum, where every event is assigned four numbers representing its time and position (the event's coordinates).
Time - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
You keep telling us how little you know about the sciences. It is a combination of time and distance that gives us velocity. Is your objection with the existence of time itself. It is not "circular reasoning" to discover a relationship between time and distance.

I know that you want to play silly games to defend your beliefs but that only tells us how weak your faith is.

What findings of science do you object to and why? Try to be serious.
 
muhammad_isa

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
It is a combination of time and distance that gives us velocity. Is your objection with the existence of time itself. It is not "circular reasoning" to discover a relationship between time and distance..
Click to expand...
Never said it was..
We need to make assumed definitions, in order to describe these relationships.

For example, we assume that the passage of time is linear, when we cannot be sure of that.
I mean, how long is a piece of string? :)

No .. one cannot make conclusions about time as a "property of the universe".
It would only be a guess that there is no such thing as time outside of (or before / after)
the universe.

Subduction Zone said:
I know that you want to play silly games to defend your beliefs..
Click to expand...
Sorry to disappoint you, but there is nothing silly about it.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
muhammad_isa said:
Never said it was..
We need to make assumed definitions, in order to describe these relationships.

For example, we assume that the passage of time is linear, when we cannot be sure of that.
I mean, how long is a piece of string? :)

No .. one cannot make conclusions about time as a "property of the universe".
It would only be a guess that there is no such thing as time outside of (or before / after)
the universe.


Sorry to disappoint you, but there is nothing silly about it.
Click to expand...
Yes, you have been rather silly here. You have not been serious. And you dodge reasonable questions. That is a sign that one knows that one is wrong.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
muhammad_isa said:
No .. you would just rather believe that the observed universe is somehow absolute..
..which is only a guess.
Click to expand...
No, it is not a matter of "rather" it is a matter of what is supported and what is not. Find a way to properly support your beliefs and they will be rational. Wishful thinking does not count as rational thought.
 
muhammad_isa

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
No, it is not a matter of "rather" it is a matter of what is supported and what is not.
Click to expand...
Supported by what .. the majority?
That does not prove a thing.

..whether it is the fact that most people believe in the existence of G-d,
or whether the majority of scientists are conditioned to think in a certain way.
Einstein knew that. :)
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
muhammad_isa said:
Supported by what .. the majority?
That does not prove a thing.

..whether it is the fact that most people believe in the existence of G-d,
or whether the majority of scientists are conditioned to think in a certain way.
Einstein knew that. :)
Click to expand...
You keep demonstrating that you have no understanding of the sciences.

Try again, your opening sentence was wrong.
 
TagliatelliMonster

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
muhammad_isa said:
No ..

Defining time in a manner applicable to all fields without circularity has consistently eluded scholars.
...
In physics, time is used to define other quantities, such as velocity, so defining time in terms of such quantities would result in circularity of definition.

Time in physics is operationally defined as "what a clock reads". This operational definition of time, wherein one says that observing a certain number of repetitions of one or another standard cyclical event constitutes one standard unit, such as the second, is useful in the conduct of both advanced experiments and everyday affairs of life.

The operational definition of time does not address the fundamental nature of time. Investigations into the relationship between space and time led physicists to define the spacetime continuum, where every event is assigned four numbers representing its time and position (the event's coordinates).
Time - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
The key word here is operational.

You might want to read the rest of that article. In particular the section under "physical definition", where it talks about the role of "time" in einsteinian physics, aka relativity.
 
osgart

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
muhammad_isa said:
No ..

Defining time in a manner applicable to all fields without circularity has consistently eluded scholars.
...
In physics, time is used to define other quantities, such as velocity, so defining time in terms of such quantities would result in circularity of definition.

Time in physics is operationally defined as "what a clock reads". This operational definition of time, wherein one says that observing a certain number of repetitions of one or another standard cyclical event constitutes one standard unit, such as the second, is useful in the conduct of both advanced experiments and everyday affairs of life.

The operational definition of time does not address the fundamental nature of time. Investigations into the relationship between space and time led physicists to define the spacetime continuum, where every event is assigned four numbers representing its time and position (the event's coordinates).
Time - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
If time is measured by the change in motion of physical objects then how do we know we are actually measuring the actual flow of time from past, present, future?

As a question that I've always wanted to know I like the post.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
SavedByTheLord said:
How is this even possible with evolution considering that you do not even know what the first living creature was or what features it had?
Click to expand...
Poorly asked question. You can't justify it. That means that it can be refuted by putting the burden of proof back upon you:

Why do you think that we need to know that? You seem to be assuming that specific traits had to exist. I do not see a need for any specific traits.
 
SavedByTheLord

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
Poorly asked question. You can't justify it. That means that it can be refuted by putting the burden of proof back upon you:

Why do you think that we need to know that? You seem to be assuming that specific traits had to exist. I do not see a need for any specific traits.
Click to expand...
Of course without certain features had to exist and working.
So what was the first living creature? Carbon dioxide?
And what featured did it have? vibration energy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top