Your suggestion that science does not use the operational definition of time is hogwash. Science created the operational definition of time. An operational definition of time, wherein one says that observing a certain number of repetitions of one or another standard cyclical event (such as the passage of a free-swinging pendulum) constitutes one standard unit such as the second, is highly useful in the conduct of both advanced experiments and everyday affairs of life. The operational definition leaves aside the question whether there is something called time, apart from the counting activity just mentioned, that flows and that can be measured. (wikipedia) It is the operational definition of time that was used in the special theory of relativity, and in measurements made that refuted the notion of an ether through which light travels in space. Light in a vaccuum is isometric in velocity, which means that it travels at the same velocity regardless of direction of travel. This has been verified time and time again.
To suggest that biblical scripture uses the operational definition of time is also hogwash, since it hadn't been defined during the time in which those books were written. Moses had no clock, and neither did Jesus. Making up terms to suit your argument is just plain wrong. Using the Bible as a science book is about as absurd an idea as has ever been conceived.
To suggest that biblical scripture uses the operational definition of time is also hogwash, since it hadn't been defined during the time in which those books were written. Moses had no clock, and neither did Jesus. Making up terms to suit your argument is just plain wrong. Using the Bible as a science book is about as absurd an idea as has ever been conceived.
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
- Dr. Donald Prothero
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
- Dr. Donald Prothero
