Time does not exist. Clocks exist.
I would agree. There is an illusion we call "time" it actually varies by the observers velocity and appears to really be the sequencing of events in a causal direction.
The moment you use words like "sequencing" you are using the concept of time to qualify time scientifically. It would be like using the concept of God to qualify God scientifically.
Quote from a Natalie Merchant song: ‘the clock is another demon that destroys our time in Eden’. I kind of agree(though I don’t believe in demons!)
As 'time' is inconsistent, I understand that time slows down the closer one gets to the speed of light, does it have any relevance at a universal level? We can use consensual markers such as clocks, calendars etc. to organise our lives, but our hunter gatherer forebears responded to cycles rather than adapted frames. In this context I have to agree with the poster. Time is consensual and only relevant at a local rather than universal level therefore does not exist as a universal constant, but a localised marker.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana
Time flies.
You can't, they're too erratic. They sit on trees and bark, and many of them weigh a ton.
Such pun, much respect.
Time exists, but the ways that we describe it, measure it, and adapt to it vary from culture to culture, and across different periods of history.