A modern object described in ancient texts negates Creation Myth

Why would the John writer, presumably ignorant of binary number systems and the idea of binary data storage, care to specify the byte size of a computer file? How would he even understand what that meant?Seriously. If you looked hard enough you could find prophecy in Dude, Where's My Car? I doubt you'll find too many people here who are going to stand physics on its ear just because you can twist the meaning of Revelations.

Why, though?When you pop in your Matrix: Reloaded DVD, do you tell people the filesize?That's a ludicrous detail to expect a time-traveller to have imparted, when nobody in his audience would have had the technical or even mathematical background to understand it. Hell, there's no way the John writer could even have been expected to understand the concept of data having a size. How can I debate with a website? You're the one promoting this stuff; it's up to you to defend it.

Does Win3.1 even have DVD drivers? I doubt it.Furthermore a 386 laptop weighs about 5 times as much as a modern Sony laptop. Why would anyone travel back in time with a crappy, heavy portable when a modern subnotebook would work? Furthermore, they'd have to get the 386 machine from a museum, that far in the future. Why bother when off-the-shelf will do?The time travel premise I'll grant you, because I'm no physicist. But I know a thing or two about computers, and it defies logic to expect a future time traveler to raid a museum for a computer that won't do anything that off-the-shelf hardware won't do better, faster, and lighter.Less isn't best, here, because the computer you're talking about isn't less, it's more - more weight, more size, and more trouble to acquire.

I'll consider God. Just bring me some evidence.Well? I'm waiting...

I'm still waiting.The fact that you can't tell the difference between a task that's impossible and a task that's just really, really hard is proof of nothing but your own lack of imagination.Back on topic. Eddy, what's the deal? I've brought up objections to your scenario in two different threads, but you've never addressed them. Why would time travellers take back a computer they would have had to plunder from a museum when off-the-shelf would have been faster, lighter, and more stable?

Says you; yet, there it is, with absolutely no sign of divine intervention - in fact, no sign of anything except a lot of elbow grease.The Egyptians weren't idiots, WT. We know that they built the Pyramids, and as far as I know, we know more or less how they did it. You couldn't address a single criticism of your theory in the thread you opened for that purpose, so I'm not going to sit here and discuss it with you OT.Don't confuse an open mind for a mind so open the brain has fallen out - which is exactly what would have to happen to me to believe your Pyramid garbage. I gave your Pyramid bullshit all the consideration it deserved, which was not much. The simplest, most accurate explanation is that the Egyptians built the Pyramids.Similarly here, the most accurate, most likely explanation is that Eddy is full of shit. There's people more qualified to attack the time travel premise; I've chosen to restrict my argument to the inconsistencies with the purported hardware. I'm as open to time travel as I am to your Pyramid horseshit, which is to say, not very.

I once saw a man on a rocky beach in San Diego stacking stones. He'd take jagged rocks, each generally sort of tear-drop shaped and about the size of a laptop computer, and stack them the long way, into piles almost 8 feet tall.Here, something like this: Rockstackers At Work in Santa Cruz, Californiaonly taller, with rocks that were more jagged, and he was balancing them sharp end to sharp end.Everyone was certain that he was cheating, somehow - using glue or magnets or fake rocks or something. But I watched him build an entire pile right before my eyes, and all he was doing was balancing them very, very carefully. He had done an entire beachful - something like 20-30 stacks - in just a few hours, which I knew because he had done them in a place where the tide was going to come in and wreck 'em.The point of this story is that the difference between reasonable people and Willowtree is that reasonable people can tell the difference between stuff that's physically impossible and stuff that's just so hard to do it's hard to imagine someone doing it. But because WT can't imagine those dumb ol' Egyptians actually building the Pyramids, it must be the result of actions by a god nobody's ever seen or heard from since.

Why wouldn't he just go back in time and tell himself not to have left at all?

Then how did the first iteration of civilization happen, I mean, the one that led to time travel?Why would it take a time travelling craptop to come up with all religions? L. Ron Hubbard started a religion with nothing but a shitty sci-fi novel. But you've got the consequences - a time-travel-capable civilization - occuring before the action - the time-trip in question.

Because prophecy is impossible. Duh! It must be time travel.

Right, I got that the first time. What I don't understand is how that's possible, when the society with time travel is the future of our society - it must be, since they're using American computers and software - but our society is the consequence of time travel.It's circular. How can a time travel society be the consequence of its own existence and actions? How does that circle get started? Right, but that first trip won't have happened at all before the first trip happens. It's a cycle, a paradox, and I don't see how it can get started if time travel is only a consequence of a time-trip that can't happen without time travel.

It still wouldn't matter, Eddy. The time travel technology would be the direct result of a civilization that wouldn't exist without time travel. It's still a paradox.The computer technology you're talking about doesn't prove time travel has occured. It proves that time travel can't ever occur. Those Bible Codes have been mathematically refuted, and no substantial defense has been offered. There's no reason to believe that the Bible codes aren't simply a case of seeing what you want ot see in a string of text sufficiently long enough.