I don't agree with almost anything Einstein says. The man was a physics genius NOT a philosopher. How can one prove that time exists anyways, it's impossible, even if you somehow moved something in the speed of light, which is pretty hard without the object itself being a wave , you would still not know what hapened to that object for it would dissapear. That is assuming he's right and that moving at the speed of light really DOES slow down the time for that wave.
There is a lot wrong with the above paragraph, scientifically. Coming from a scientific point of view rather than a philosophical point of you as you seem to, I would suggest that you read Hawking's most excellent "A Brief History of Time". The last few chapters are somewhat dedicated to your question and its written in laymans terms. Also, there are many laymans explanations of Relativity and perhaps some Quantum theory to be found. You seem to be treating science like philosophy here, its not a matter of just arguing a case and saying it is so, we are talking about the scientific process here. By all means if you can refute any of Einstein's equations in particular (you mentioned you disagreed with most of what he has ever said) then I'd love to see your work, but please dont think you can argue science, especially physics in terms of pure subjective philosophical observations. Eistein's theories have been verified many many times over, time is not a constant, and varies with velocity, the speed of electromagnetic radiation through a vaccum is, namely c. That is not to say that Physics, specially on the cutting edge is and should be very intertwined with Philosophy, but it is a case of implications and insights rather than mixing and matching approaches, conclusions and methods.

I dont exactly understand your point either, you are saying that if it wasnt for memory, we wouldnt know that time exists? And thus we cant prove it exists. Sure, but memory is a result of time passing (or at least is a product of of it passing and is enabled by it) so it's the equivalent of saying without the force of attraction we wouldnt knowei about gravity. But we DO know about the force of attraction and we DO have memory, so we can percieve the passing of time. Calling it time and perceving it as we do is of course a very human invention, but it is a fundamental quality of the physical Universe. Observation, theorisation and verification is ultimately the only way we can make proper determinations about the Universe. This is in essence what the Scientific Process boils down to. What this has led to is the determination that there is a characteristic of the Universe which is completely non-spacial, non-massive and uni-direction (always from past to present to future) which determines the order of events and which is apparently irriversable. Humans call this characteristic of the Universe time. What exactly do you dispute? Due to the fact that you can remember things, you acknowledge there is a fundamnetal characteristic of the Universe as described above. Calling it time, perceiving it and writing equations describing it is totally specific to humans, or conscious beings, but the quality of the Universe still exists, even if we were not around to see or perceive it. If a tree falls in a wood and nobody is around does it make any noise? (Now Im starting with Philosophy , and somehow I have a feeling that you will disagree with me on the tree as well... ) Anyway, 2AM here and Im going sleepy sleepy!