Replies

My calibrated clocks are the method I use to scientifically prove time displacement, nothing more. Appearance of my clocks is irrelevant to their ability to keep continuous time. Can't you see that if my clocks were here 2 days ago, that they cannot have been created yesterday? THAT alone disproves the hypothesis that has not been proven. Science does not have to disprove what's not been proven....we can ignore it until proof is given and THEN go after the proof.

Hypothesize all you want...didn't you know that dogs were really cats yesterday?

Don't you see that if everything was created yesterday, your clocks would look exactly like they look right now?

It's not about the friggin' APPEARANCE of my clocks. APPEARANCE is IRRELEVANT. It's about the clock's ability to tell and count the friggin' time accurately. How you can even follow a baseless hypothesis and claim anything is beyond me.

So, your appeal to the present appearance of your clocks to "scientifically prove that creation did not happen yesterday" proves nothing at all, since the evidence would look exactly the same if creation did happen yesterday.

IT IS NOT ABOUT APPEARANCE. You DO know that time passes don't you? I use my clocks to PROVE that time has passed, nothing more. Those clocks were counting the time 2 days ago and accurately counted the time for the next 48 hours, thus their creation COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED YESTERDAY. Proven...signed...sealed...delivered. The hypothesis fails.

Go ahead. Prove your hypothesis. Prove that everything was created yesterday. Until then, you've got nothing but a philosophical discussion that you're trying to pose as scienctific thinking....even logical thinking. Baseless....based on nothing. Nada. Zip.

Can't you see that if my clocks were here 2 days ago, that they cannot have been created yesterday?

Initially you claimed "I CAN scientifically prove that creation didn't happen yesterday". Now, to prove scientifically that the world was not created yesterday, you claim that your clocks were here 2 days ago. But, that begs the question, How do you scientifically prove that your clocks were here 2 days ago? If you reply, "Because my clocks were here 3 days ago", you are led to a regress that undermines the epistemological foundation of your initial claim.

My point is not so play games, but only to point out the limitations of positivistic science, limitations which are so often ignored and forgotten by scientists.

-A8