My time machine

olderguy · Jan 1, 2015

How many of you understand we aren't all using the same definition of Time in this thread? Post Amen if you get this.

Dad, John didn't travel through time. God showed him things that are supposed to happen. I'd bet you anything that not even 1 person alive 2000 years ago even considered that what John saw might not happen for over 100 - 200 years at the most. Whatever John saw, he certainly didn't describe it properly. I'd say the same thing for Daniel and Enoch. And at this point I'm wondering if what they were shown has somehow changed.

Another idea I have is why is it that when Jesus will return is so unknown. Jesus said only The Father knows when, and I accept that. But, suppose it's not a specific point that The Father has set in stone, so to speak. I think the Father when send Jesus and the Heavenly Host here when conditions are right. Only the Father knows what those conditions are. Even Jesus didn't, so I laugh every time a man thinks he knows. Foolish little man. I also have a hunch about what 1 of the conditions may be. But I tell very few people because I know that I don't know. It's just an educated guess.

Davian · Jan 1, 2015

dad said:
Heck, isn't is about time you got saved? I feel responsible now for hauling you over here

Davian · Jan 1, 2015

dad said:
Why would anyone need to prove the earth revolves? Is it wrong to accept science on that? How you could think you have some big point on this issue, is beyond me.

Then you admit that you cannot provide proof that simple, common belief? Even in the face of your demands of proof from others?

Your evasive answer will be accepted as your admittance of defeat.

bhsmte · Jan 1, 2015

Davian said:
Then you admit that you cannot provide proof that simple, common belief? Even in the face of your demands of proof from others?

Your evasive answer will be accepted as your admittance of defeat.

Dad comes up on the short end again.

olderguy · Jan 1, 2015

KTS said:
We have a theory which predicts that it will happen, it predicts by how much it will happen, we have experimental results that show that it does happen and to the degree predicted...

... and this doesn't count as support for the theory? Please.

What exactly is the theory?

My pov is that time is not a place you can travel to. Further, if we were immortal I doubt we'd even have much concern for time. Only if I wanted to meet you here again when I am here would we even need a concept of time.

If we were interested in mortal Beings (such as humans are now) then we'd have to be concerned with their time. But to us, as immortals, time would not even exist. To us it is always now, and the now never changes. At least we don't change.

KTS, if your theory requires speeds of near light or better to see a significant difference in changes of an object to prove the theory, then I dare say you will never know. If we could build a ship that moved fast enough I'd put fruit on it that will spoil in very little time. Send the ship out for a month and bring it back. If the fruit didn't spoil that would be very significant.

But it still doesn't prove there's a future or a past you can go to and then return. It seems to prove that extremely fast speeds cause a slower decay rate of matter when compared to stationary matter. Great, so what. If you leave in such a ship and stay away too long when you return everyone you knew will be dead and gone. Hmm??? This might interest criminals. Although, it would be hysterical if when they returned mankind had become decent and had found ways to see who is evil minded. We would promptly apprehend the criminals and get rid of them. That would have made a great old "Twilight Zone" episode.

CryOfALion · Jan 1, 2015

dad said:
Yes. If the we means you and me. Our history is determined by how we receive Jesus. The history of mankind is just playing out all the choices and consequences, and learning lessons from God for some of us, etc.

I am not taking about death; I am talking about inevitability. Jesus did not come here to die in a world where man had no real choice and everything was 'inevitable'! He is greater than inevitable.

Your time travel may be an illusion, that is fine. God's ain't! It is real.

That is merely a marking of the process of time on earth in this soon to no longer exist temporal state.
Yes I can! It's fun.

John was shown the future. It was only inevitable in the sense that that was how the future really was, so how could anyone change it?? If Hitler had gotten saved, then history would not be as it was. Maybe there would have been some other bad guy, but we do have real choices.

The reason that war and etc is inevitable is sin.

No. It is happening as we speak! It just happens that God is outside of our time limits, so He can be in the future too. When He says how it will be, it is absolutely certain and every bit as good as if He was there in the future, because He is! Even the devil knows that Scripture must be fulfilled.

We all live in time...face it. God set it up. Baloney.

That sounds more like Hindu mysticism than reality.
Rubbish. I ain't quite done here yet.

Not like you think.

It takes so much time for atoms to do what they do. They are bound by time. There is no energy without time here!

No it is a sin issue, and even sin takes time!
No. They can experience love and find a purpose from God in many cases.

A dog lives so many years. That means time. It can have a baby. That means time. Etc. You cannot simply declare time is not real.

That is all a matter of opinion! My current opinion of the function of stars is that they may have been set there to regulate time for earth in a real way by God. But as I say, it is all opinion at this point.

That's their problem.

That means nothing. You have not defined your so called time travel, and do not even so much as believe in time!!! Rather than an actual man going someplace in time you seem to be talking about some drugged out occult illusion.
Look who's talking! I have plenty of idea because God spilled the beans in the bible. Don't presume to speak for me when you pass out the ignorant buttons.
Numbers don't mean anything either? Time isn't real according to you. Get a grip man.
Strawman. Whos said anything about limp stars? You need to get a grip.

False. What is allowed and good for the saved goose is not allowed for the demon gander in many many cases. Period. There are rules.

One way to know truth or lies is looking to God's word. Your vague ideas fall short so far. You also seem to fear the boogy man will sneak in and shoot you if you post the wrong thing. Whatever you think you know that is so cool and dangerous, may actually be mostly hot air and deception. God has not given us a spirit of fear.

Hey the mickey mouse club can practice whatever they want. They do theirs, and I'll do mine. Do not expect me to bow when I walk by some so called magicians or wise men. They are the ones who need to tip their hat when we come by.

What warning from who??

With the Light of the world in our hearts, we need not be too impressed by little led lights in a dark room actually.

Relax. We all need to know Jesus, and let the enemies go to hell. Not rocket science that.

I do not try to translate myself, relax. However, I also realize that the word of God does lift the veil of time for us to some extent. We are more than conquerors with Christ, and destined to rule forever with Him. We are safe in His hands, and no enemy can take us out. Ever. Men should fear God, not some silly fallen angels or whatnots.

I really can't with you. We are on two different threads.

Kylie · Jan 1, 2015

olderguy said:
What exactly is the theory?

General relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My pov is that time is not a place you can travel to. Further, if we were immortal I doubt we'd even have much concern for time. Only if I wanted to meet you here again when I am here would we even need a concept of time.

Would you also have little concern for causality?

If we were interested in mortal Beings (such as humans are now) then we'd have to be concerned with their time. But to us, as immortals, time would not even exist. To us it is always now, and the now never changes. At least we don't change.

How so? Even if you are immortal, if you burn a book you will never be able to read it again. And that separates time into two periods - before the burning of the book and after the burning of the book.

KTS, if your theory requires speeds of near light or better to see a significant difference in changes of an object to prove the theory, then I dare say you will never know. If we could build a ship that moved fast enough I'd put fruit on it that will spoil in very little time. Send the ship out for a month and bring it back. If the fruit didn't spoil that would be very significant.

Relativity allows us to predict what distortion in time we get at what speeds. We have been able to go fast enough to see these results. In fact, these results need to be taken into account in order for GPS to work correctly.

But it still doesn't prove there's a future or a past you can go to and then return. It seems to prove that extremely fast speeds cause a slower decay rate of matter when compared to stationary matter. Great, so what. If you leave in such a ship and stay away too long when you return everyone you knew will be dead and gone. Hmm??? This might interest criminals. Although, it would be hysterical if when they returned mankind had become decent and had found ways to see who is evil minded. We would promptly apprehend the criminals and get rid of them. That would have made a great old "Twilight Zone" episode.

I never said anything about going to a different point in time and then returning to the time you departed.

But, given a fast enough rocket, your criminal analogy would indeed occur.

SkyWriting · Jan 2, 2015

dad said:
OK. However, I listen to them quacking on about the death of the universe, and how the sun will sort of burn out, and etc. All hogwash false prophesy based on nothing! (except a belief that our laws will always be here and that there is no God).

Even the shorter term predictions like climate warming have a bad dose of 'godless samestateosis'!

Actually that's me that brings up the topic of heat death of the universe regularly.
They are scared of that scientific idea because it declared that the cosmos will have an end......and guess what
......a beginning.

Top say the Universe had a beginning and will end leans much more toward the scriptures than
away from them. "Science" can prove that "something" only can be created from something greater and more
complicated than the result.

We are the result, so the Creator must be bigger and smarter. If the universe had a beginning, then that
"Thing" is bigger than our reality.

And that's exactly what the scriptures indicate.

dad · Jan 2, 2015

olderguy said:
How many of you understand we aren't all using the same definition of Time in this thread? Post Amen if you get this.

Dad, John didn't travel through time.

Whoah!!! Like you would know?? If God TOOK John up to heaven to see the future, I would say that involves time. John was there! He heard, and saw.

Re 17:1 -And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great harlot that sitteth upon many waters:
3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw....

Re 21:9 -And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.

God showed him things that are supposed to happen.

No a lot more than that. God TOOK him.

Re 17:1 -And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great harlot that sitteth upon many waters:
3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw....

Re 21:9 -And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.

I'd bet you anything that not even 1 person alive 2000 years ago even considered that what John saw might not happen for over 100 - 200 years at the most. Whatever John saw, he certainly didn't describe it properly. I'd say the same thing for Daniel and Enoch. And at this point I'm wondering if what they were shown has somehow changed.

The angels out and out told Daniel the vision was not for then but for many days. In John's case, there was no need to guess years, the events were laid out leading to the final outcome. Unless they saw those events, then the prophesy could never be fulfilled. Events like the AntiChrist ruling, and etc.

Another idea I have is why is it that when Jesus will return is so unknown. Jesus said only The Father knows when, and I accept that. But, suppose it's not a specific point that The Father has set in stone, so to speak. I think the Father when send Jesus and the Heavenly Host here when conditions are right. Only the Father knows what those conditions are. Even Jesus didn't, so I laugh every time a man thinks he knows. Foolish little man. I also have a hunch about what 1 of the conditions may be. But I tell very few people because I know that I don't know. It's just an educated guess.

The return of Christ is both known and unknown to some who will be alive. For the Rapture it will be like a thief in the night. However, for the actual second coming to earth, that will be known to within a small margin of error!

dad · Jan 2, 2015

Davian said:
Then you admit that you cannot provide proof that simple, common belief? Even in the face of your demands of proof from others?

More like couldn't be bothered. It is not a burning issue whether the earth revolves around the sun! It is not something anyone needs to spend a lot of time researching for you here. It should be obvious.

Your evasive answer will be accepted as your admittance of defeat.

Can you prove you have a wallet to us? Can you prove you had a mother? Can you prove that gravity works...etc etc? To ask for proof the earth revolves is foolish. To pretend you gain some victory by being foolish is unworthy of debate.

dad · Jan 2, 2015

CryOfALion said:
I really can't with you. We are on two different threads.

Can't argue with that.

dad · Jan 2, 2015

SkyWriting said:
Actually that's me that brings up the topic of heat death of the universe regularly.
They are scared of that scientific idea because it declared that the cosmos will have an end......and guess what
......a beginning.

That really doesn't have a lot of meaning unless that beginning was creation in the week of creation.

Top say the Universe had a beginning and will end leans much more toward the scriptures than
away from them. "Science" can prove that "something" only can be created from something greater and more
complicated than the result.

We are the result, so the Creator must be bigger and smarter. If the universe had a beginning, then that
"Thing" is bigger than our reality.

That doesn't resonate with me. Unless the beginning was just as the bible says, it might as well not exist. Some theorized possible beginning by science is total hooey.

And that's exactly what the scriptures indicate.

No. Unless you mean God forming man and making a garden and the stars and animals one week not so long ago.

SkyWriting · Jan 2, 2015

JustMeSee said:
Never into past events?
Is this ignorance or wilful denial?
Many branches of science deal with past events.

They attempt to. But they can reach no farther
than what can be repeated by a hostile researcher.

We can make predictions about what a star will
do when it explodes, then search for exploding
stars to check our theories, but even mounting
support does not "prove" our theory about what
happened. Our guess may be proven wrong at
any time in the future.

One time we thought that flies transmuted from meat.
ANY one could set out some meat and support the
theory. But eventually more closely conducted
researchers hostile to the theory, showed that
other factors weren't taken into account, such as
flies laying eggs in the meat.

All research into the past has the same weakness.

Kylie · Jan 2, 2015

dad said:
More like couldn't be bothered. It is not a burning issue whether the earth revolves around the sun! It is not something anyone needs to spend a lot of time researching for you here. It should be obvious.

For space probes it is.

But if we send out space probes, they might send us data that invalidates your different state ideas. Can't have that.

Can you prove you have a wallet to us?

Yes. I can show it to you. I can show you that it contains my license with my name and photo.

Can you prove you had a mother?

Yes. I can show you that I am human and that humans require a female to carry them and give birth to them, and I can show you that this female is called a mother. I can also show you DNA records that illustrate that I am related to a female older than myself who shares enough DNA with me to consider her my mother.

Can you prove that gravity works...etc etc?

I can pick up an object and drop it.

To ask for proof the earth revolves is foolish.

But there's plenty of proof out there. If you understand science...

To pretend you gain some victory by being foolish is unworthy of debate.

Dismissing things you don't like as foolish is also unworthy of debate.

dad · Jan 2, 2015

KTS said:
For space probes it is.

But if we send out space probes, they might send us data that invalidates your different state ideas. Can't have that.

There are lots of probes and none has sent any data that does anything of the kind. Relax.

Yes. I can show it to you. I can show you that it contains my license with my name and photo.

Right as we all could most likely, but that is silly.

Yes. I can show you that I am human and that humans require a female to carry them and give birth to them, and I can show you that this female is called a mother. I can also show you DNA records that illustrate that I am related to a female older than myself who shares enough DNA with me to consider her my mother.

Why take the time do do that, when it is silly to do so here, because it is supposed to be about evolution and creation issues?

I can pick up an object and drop it.

To prove gravity in a post is another matter. You would need to do research, and waste a lot of time. All that sort of thing is a diversion, a canard. There is no need to prove the earth revolves to the average sane person.

Dismissing things you don't like as foolish is also unworthy of debate.

I do not dislike the earth revolving. That is old news, and to try to ask posters to rehash evidences for earth rotating and revolving is a time wasting thing. Especially when (I hope) the poster is not dumb enough to believe that the earth doesn't revolve!

Kylie · Jan 2, 2015

dad said:
There are lots of probes and none has sent any data that does anything of the kind. Relax.

I am relaxed. They are never going to send back data that shows the laws of the universe are fundamentally different .

Right as we all could most likely, but that is silly.

Why is it silly? It satisfies your demand, doesn't it?

Why take the time do do that, when it is silly to do so here, because it is supposed to be about evolution and creation issues?

Yeah, what does biology have to do with evolution?

To prove gravity in a post is another matter. You would need to do research, and waste a lot of time. All that sort of thing is a diversion, a canard. There is no need to prove the earth revolves to the average sane person.

Then I ask you to do the experiment and drop something and you can see for yourself.

I do not dislike the earth revolving. That is old news, and to try to ask posters to rehash evidences for earth rotating and revolving is a time wasting thing. Especially when (I hope) the poster is not dumb enough to believe that the earth doesn't revolve!

So why did you even bring it up?

Davian · Jan 2, 2015

dad said:
More like couldn't be bothered. It is not a burning issue whether the earth revolves around the sun! It is not something anyone needs to spend a lot of time researching for you here. It should be obvious.
Can you prove you have a wallet to us? Can you prove you had a mother? Can you prove that gravity works...etc etc? To ask for proof the earth revolves is foolish.

As foolish as your demand for proof from others.

Pointing that out is not foolish on my part.

dad said:
To pretend you gain some victory by being foolish is unworthy of debate.

That you are here continuing to debate me shows otherwise. Dad, defeated.

dad · Jan 2, 2015

Davian said:
As foolish as your demand for proof from others.

Ah, at long last something that appears to be a point.

Too bad it falls flat as a flounder. There never was any proof of any kind for a same state past at the dawn of creation from science.

Therefore it is not valid to try to compare that to something that has long been strongly supported and evidenced and observed such as the movements of the earth around the sun.

That you are here continuing to debate me shows otherwise. Dad, defeated.

As I pointed out, not only am I not defeated, but you just got the tar knocked out of your attempted reasoning.

dad · Jan 2, 2015

KTS said:
I am relaxed. They are never going to send back data that shows the laws of the universe are fundamentally different .

I agree, no more than any that shows it is the same. So? Look, man doesn't even know what time IS, let alone how it weaves into space, and laws...now when we are talking far far far beyond where man has ever been, and can see worth beans, just forget it!

Why is it silly? It satisfies your demand, doesn't it?

My demand was merely a facetious question to illustrate the question posed by a poster, asking for 'proof' that the earth revolves.

Yeah, what does biology have to do with evolution?

Not that much, since biology is a study that is wholly anchored in this present world and life processes and laws!

Then I ask you to do the experiment and drop something and you can see for yourself.

That is meaningless on a forum, because that can't be posted, and requires us to believe you. Besides that, noo one is questioning gravity, (in our world and solar system) any more than that the earth revolves around the sun. Therefore to demand 'proof' for the long known and painfully obvious is not honest debating.

olderguy · Jan 2, 2015

KTS said:
General relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Would you also have little concern for causality?

How so? Even if you are immortal, if you burn a book you will never be able to read it again. And that separates time into two periods - before the burning of the book and after the burning of the book.

Relativity allows us to predict what distortion in time we get at what speeds. We have been able to go fast enough to see these results. In fact, these results need to be taken into account in order for GPS to work correctly.

I never said anything about going to a different point in time and then returning to the time you departed.

But, given a fast enough rocket, your criminal analogy would indeed occur.

Just to be certain, in those experiments with the 2 clocks, was the one on the airplane ahead of or behind the one on the ground? I've been assuming it was behind the one on the ground. But I never really asked.

Go right ahead and believe Time is something real. It doesn't really matter too much. But I'll tell you a few things I'm sure you won't really forget. They will probably leave your mind for 30 years, but then you will remember. Someday, when a whole new generation of young people is all excited over new unprovable ideas, as well as the old unproven ideas you will know what I mean. I've been waiting 40 - 50 years for hard evidence, or tangible proof, of several things. These include Bigfoot, UFO's, little Gray men, Nessie, Evolution (yuk), time travel, Blackholes, and other dimensions, just to name a few. I happen to know there are things flying in space that aren't of Earth because I saw them more than once or twice in 1967. But from what I saw, and what I now know, they aren't aliens from another star system. I no longer even think they're actual machines, such as we need to fly though the air and space. I think they're living creatures of some sort, and I heard we have now made something that supports this idea. Have you heard of the research whereby plants are being grown into buildings and other inanimate objects? If such building ever become feasible they will be self repairing. Or imagine a bridge made of living cells. When stress causes cracks the bridge will grow to repair itself. This is something we humans are doing.
Anyway, I feel betrayed by overzealous science buffs from the 60's - 80's because I expected hard proof on certain things. I mean at least Bigfoot. By now if this creature is real someone should have proof. Maybe it's just way more profitable to keep him a fantasy and make money that way.

So finally I had to decide to not let you youngsters get to me with your ideas. I once enjoyed believing such things too. Just watch out for people who will connive money from society to chase ideas that are unprovable. Likewise, be cautious of people who use unprovable ideas to claim God is not real. Because God is the only hope this Earth has to get better.

Now tell me which clock was ahead of the other, please.

My time machine

Dedicated Follower of Lord Jesus

fallible

fallible

Newbie

Dedicated Follower of Lord Jesus

Newbie

Defeater of Illogic

The Librarian

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

The Librarian

Defeater of Illogic

Undefeated!

Defeater of Illogic

fallible

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Dedicated Follower of Lord Jesus

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency