Religious

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

boxcar,

Why are you so tenacious defending your flawed analogy with Hcap's watch?

Unlike Hcap's watch, do the hands on your watch move in a linear movement each tick as it moves from 12 to 12? If your watch doesn't then your analogy is flawed. I am sure your watch, like Hcap's watch, moves in a circular pattern as it returns to its starting point, the number 12.

Everyone's watch, on Earth, measures time like a wheel making one complete revolution. As the wheel completes its revolution it moves forward equal to one complete revolution of the wheel. Time does not come toward the wheel to move it forward. The revolution movement of the wheel propels it forward creating a new present as it revolves.

The ancient Aztecs could grasp this simple principle, so why can't you?

No matter where it returns, it moves only in one direction! Never backwards! The hands are always moving FORWARD. The hands, as explained previously, represent the flow of time. The numbers are fixed representing the Present, so...the forward moving hands are always arriving to or leaving for the Present. It makes no difference that the watch is circular. For one day follows another, does it not? And one week follows another. And one month follow another, and one year follows another. These patterns are called cycles! But so what? You can move forward or backward in a spiral or circular motion!

Boxcar
P.S. Observe how a a spiral corkscrew is made!

[Greyfox]

The one minute mark describes much of the recent stuff on this thread.

[YT="Events"]8Rg8pHdR3j4[/YT]

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

No matter where it returns, it moves only in one direction! Never backwards! The hands are always moving FORWARD. The hands, as explained previously, represent the flow of time. The numbers are fixed representing the Present, so...the forward moving hands are always arriving to or leaving for the Present. It makes no difference that the watch is circular. For one day follows another, does it not? And one week follows another. And one month follow another, and one year follows another. These patterns are called cycles! But so what? You can move forward or backward in a spiral or circular motion!

Boxcar
P.S. Observe how a a spiral corkscrew is made!

The hands are moving in one direction, not forward, to return to its starting point. You could build a watch that moves in the other direction and it still would work, all you have to do is reorder the numbers on the face. Does that mean time moves backwards?

p.s. a spiral does not return to its starting point. Do you have revisions to geometry too?

[hcap]

I have to say I have dealt with buddy boxcar since 2003, and he has never been so dense as now. Amazing!

So box, what year in the future were you born? As I said, you insisted you were from/born in the future. Btw, I lived in Brooklyn. You do know of course about the bridge there, don't you? I can give you the name of a Brooklyn realtor, my cousin Abe. Also part time fish monger and science fiction writer (fictionist). Not only will he sell you a bridge, he will serve you herring and read you a bedtime story. If you prefer he can first wake you up, then read you a bedtime story, then feed you the herring and then cinch the deal on the bridge. (in his office of course)

All depends on whether you are coming or going

Err..,excuse me Mr.Jesting Shirley, what is the name of the evangelical group you lifted your time theory from? Maybe we can get a more lucid explanation from the originators rather than the mere repeater who is doing another of his piss-poor jobs of clarifying God's word to those evil skeptics and physicists who doubt you know whada F**k you are talking about.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

The hands are moving in one direction, not forward, to return to its starting point. You could build a watch that moves in the other direction and it still would work, all you have to do is reorder the numbers on the face. Does that mean time moves backwards?

But watches aren't built that way, are they!? Yeah...You and Hcap could build anything that is backwards to reality, as all rational people know it. But in the real world, people think of the hands of a watch or clock as moving ahead because intuitively rational human beings know hands on the watch represent time in motion -- or time, streaming ahead. When someone has a 2 P.M. appointment and its noon time, he's looking ahead to his appointment. He's not looking behind.

p.s. a spiral does not return to its starting point. Do you have revisions to geometry too?

But what they both have in common is that they are cyclical! They repeat their patterns,which was my point, thank you.

Now, I have a question for you which I'm chompin' at the bit for you to answer, especially you since you consider the creation account to be nothing more than allegorical fiction -- but here's goes the question, anyway:

Gen 1.1 begins with: IN THE BEGINNING. In this beginning of God's work of creation, including Time, was the source of all Time at that beginning point contained in the Past, Present or Future?

To make myself abundantly clear, I'm not asking you if all Time is contained in the Past, Present or Future; for as time progresses, i.e. cycles through its forward stream, it should be evident to everyone that all Time at the end of the age would have been contained in the Future And that all time that has passed through the Present would have been contained in the Present and that as Time flowed through the Present, all Time at the end of the age will also have been contained in the Past. But what I'm am asking is that in the beginning, where was the SOURCE of all time that has passed, is passing and will have passed through history until the end of the age? In the beginning, was the source of all time the Past, Present or Future? Did the Past contain it all at the beginning? Or did the Present contain it all at the beginning? Or did the Future contain it all at the beginning?

Have a nice night as you solve this riddle.
Boxcar

[hcap]

As you said Shirley, "To make myself abundantly clear"


[YT="Take it away Professor"]/MxtN0xxzfsw?[/YT]

[Show Me the Wire]

But watches aren't built that way, are they!? Yeah...You and Hcap could build anything that is backwards to reality, as all rational people know it. But in the real world, people think of the hands of a watch or clock as moving ahead because intuitively rational human beings know hands on the watch represent time in motion -- or time, streaming ahead

.

How can one man believe in so many misconceptions?

You can find some real time keeping pieces with anti-clockwise movement here:

http://www.anythinglefthanded.co.uk/...s_watches.html.

Now, do you understand why your hcap's watch analogy is flawed?

But what they both have in common is that they are cyclical! They repeat their patterns,which was my point, thank you

Another different definition, by you. Repeating patterns does not make a spiral shape like a circle, it depends on the relationship point to the curve.

Spiral:
A curve which turns around some central point, getting further away (or closer and closer) as it goes.

Circle:
A plane curve everywhere equidistant from a given fixed point, the center.





.

[Show Me the Wire]

Now, I have a question for you which I'm chompin' at the bit for you to answer, especially you since you consider the creation account to be nothing more than allegorical fiction -- but here's goes the question, anyway:

Are you still chompin' at the bit? First what does one have to do with the other. Meaning what does not believing in a 7 day creation, with each day measured in 24 hours and the source of time?

Are you asking for answers with a religious perspective or a physics perspective?

I have at question for you? How do you expect anyone to believe your interpretations of anything when you make false blanket statements, based on your assumptions (no anti-clockwise movement watches) and apply your own meanings to commonly understood definitions (circle and spiral)? It is a rhetorical question.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Mr Incoherent Pants

Of course, I came out of the future. There was a point in time when I was conceived -- before that point became the Past. As one month followed the other, eventually I WAS born. But now all those events are behind me. I can now say in the Present that I was conceived at a time in the Past. But there was a point in the Past when it was the Present -- before that moment faded into the Past forever. And I was conceived, as we all were, at a moment that was the Present for our parents. But once that Present moment faded away behind our parents, it became the Past for them. And once we are born, it became the Past for us.

Professor, would you mind explaining how your bolded statement is logically supported in any way by the double talk in the rest of the above post. You simply confuse the issue by using the phrase "out of the future" relatively, not as an the sense of what is to be from NOW.

So we all agree, when you were born, was only in the future relative to a moment in that futures past. So what? BIG F****NG deal. You are once again deflecting by juggling the meaning of words and the tense in which they are used!. Double talking to save your sorry pathetic ass on what you specifically claimed in your incoherent thesis.

Originally Posted by Mr Sorry Ass

Many have spoken of the “stream of Time” as flowing out of the Past. Most believe that Time moves out of the Past through the Present into the Future. But this is all backwards! For Time does not come out of the Past; it proceeds from the Future! I have undoubtedly shocked many readers’ minds with this revelation because it militates sharply against the habit of our thinking. Nonetheless, it is the self-evident fact.

You obviously have no idea of what time issuing from the future means in this world. Time would flow backwards in respect to our usual expectations! If you were correct,-----starting at this moment,.... your watch which had been turning clockwise would NOW turn counter clockwise. You would shit before you digested and then ate

At the point you were conceived, your birth occurred relative to your conception, and YES, that would occur in the future relative to that moment. But without getting to graphic, your parents literally planted the seeds for your future birth in a past relative to your future birth.

First you got panted then harvested. Not the other way round. How often have any of us harvested plants before we plant their seed? Doesn't that screw up dozens of biblical passages if true?

Your clearly (for a change) declared the “stream of Time” proceeds from the Future in your thesis. Time would therefore run backwards, and an egg could be UN-scrambled and yes the world would appear to run as a recording played from the end to the beginning. Backwards to ALL OF US.

So what yo have done is play on the confusion you invoke about exactly what tense you actually mean about the future relative to the present.

You are not from any of our futures NOW! And at any point in time the future is always after that point! So what? But that does not support your trumpeted bullshit in your thesis....."For Time does not come out of the Past; it proceeds from the Future! "

Everyone knows where one is at any moment in the present is RELATIVE to what has happened before, and what has yet to happen as the future relative to that present moment. But that does not in any way show logically that the future precedes the past.

Again But that does not in any way show logically that the future precedes the past.

Again But that does not in any way show logically that the future precedes the past.

Did you get that?

It is quite apparent you are now saying a very big oops! to yourself and are no longer supporting your thesis, and in fact are hiding your monumental error declared in your thesis, as far as the flow of time goes---by pulling a Professor Irwin Corey, and just continue to bold- face lie thru your teeth ever since I called you out on this nonsense.

Proof: You just said

But in the real world, people think of the hands of a watch or clock as moving ahead because intuitively rational human beings know hands on the watch represent time in motion -- or time, streaming ahead. When someone has a 2 P.M. appointment and its noon time, he's looking ahead to his appointment.

You do realize you just said "human beings know hands on the watch represent time in motion -- or time, streaming ahead. You did not say time streaming from the future. We all know and agree. Time moving forward is simply from the past to the future

Now, I must say this entire conversation is absurd. I am finishing my part realizing no matter what I say Shirley You Jest will NEVER under any circumstances admit he is wrong or is now disavowing himself from his original contention in his thesis about time flowing from the future. I will leave this topic quoting our renowned philosophers humility:

I have undoubtedly shocked many readers’ minds with this revelation because it militates sharply against the habit of our thinking. Nonetheless, it is the self-evident fact

[hcap]

Originally Posted by SMTW

I have at question for you? How do you expect anyone to believe your interpretations of anything when you make false blanket statements, based on your assumptions (no anti-clockwise movement watches) and apply your own meanings to commonly understood definitions (circle and spiral)? It is a rhetorical question.

Whenever one chooses to use ones' religion to comment on real world phenomena, one goers out on a rather perilous limb




We all know this is just another limb he has crawled out onto.
His saw must be quite dull by now

The age of the universe

The literal 7 solar day creation

Dinosaurs living at the same time as early man. And Noah literally saving so many species aboard an Ark of his own creation.

[Show Me the Wire]

First you got panted then harvested. Not the other way round. How often have any of us harvested plants before we plant their seed? Doesn't that screw up dozens of biblical passages if true?

hcap,

This is true. However, this is how boxcar believes God works. Remember Calvin teaches you are harvested when you are created. You are saved or condemned at the moment of creation. Does created mean when God plants or born into time? This is the crux of the issue. This why one would insist he was born in the future. Calvin teaches backward salvation so it is okay to reconcile the belief of backward moving time with God's act and not violate Scriptural teachings about the order of planting, growing and then harvesting.

You are correct this entire conversation about time is absurd and its another rabbit hole resulting from Calvin's teaching. Also, I am finished posting about this particular topic too with boxcar.

[Show Me the Wire]

I think this is the work I referred to. The Trinity in the Universe a reprinting of Dr. Nathan H. Wood's , former president of Gordon College in his book The Secret of the Universe (Warwick Press, 1932).

Similarly, Time is future, present, and past. The future is the unseen source of time, manifest moment-by-moment in the present and understood in the past. Again substitute Father, Son, and Spirit.

Henry Morris, Ph.D.

The above quote refers to the above work as one basis for the Doctor's conclusion about the idea that time's source is in the future.

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

I think this is the work I referred to. The Trinity in the Universe a reprinting of Dr. Nathan H. Wood's , former president of Gordon College in his book The Secret of the Universe (Warwick Press, 1932).

Henry Morris, Ph.D.

The above quote refers to the above work as one basis for the Doctor's conclusion about the idea that time's source is in the future.

Reminds me quite a bit of Frank Herbert's Dune saga (not Dune itself, but later books). In it, the future is found to already be written, and drives the past and present and not the other way around. One of the characters was able to understand this through his prescience and chose an alternate future to save humankind, but required him to rewrite the past over centuries and change the present course of history to make it happen. Interesting thought process, but of course fantasy.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

I think this is the work I referred to. The Trinity in the Universe a reprinting of Dr. Nathan H. Wood's , former president of Gordon College in his book The Secret of the Universe (Warwick Press, 1932).

Henry Morris, Ph.D.

The above quote refers to the above work as one basis for the Doctor's conclusion about the idea that time's source is in the future.

Thanks. I will check that out.

I think most of boxcar's thesis at least as far as I have read is just what I choose to call it: a quasi-philosophical, pseudo-scientific hodgepodge that claims and speculates all sorts of stuff. Whether or not the Christian Trinity is existent in some way in the universe is a matter of interpretation and similar to what I have come across in spiritual writings of various OTHER religions and philosophies. It can be argued till blue in the face. Fine. But the problem is boxcar has tried to pass off his thesis as some sort of "ultimate scientific" discussion of all sorts of things.

If you remember we all were questioning his so-called authority on the age of the universe and other aspects of cosmology somewhere back around page 670, when he told us to go look for his 11 part paper so we could learn at the feet of the master

We are currently working on page 695. And he has said nothing scientifically speaking that is worth noting. My objection has been about his declarative statements that are not scientifically valid. I have not objected to his speculation about a "Triune Universe", yet simply because if he keeps it in the realm of speculation who cares? If he decides--and he may further in his thesis which I probably will not read any more of --to attempt to scientifically prove it, it falls under the same heading of his time flowing from the future garbage--which does violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. and requires evidence. And is not self-evident.

But there is no point discussing any thing else with him. He just demonstrated a total lack of rationality.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by tucker6

Reminds me quite a bit of Frank Herbert's Dune saga (not Dune itself, but later books). In it, the future is found to already be written, and drives the past and present and not the other way around. One of the characters was able to understand this through his prescience and chose an alternate future to save humankind, but required him to rewrite the past over centuries and change the present course of history to make it happen. Interesting thought process, but of course fantasy.

I liked Dune but don't remember his other stuff.

In many ways in both a western cosmological and religious way, and an Eastern philosophical way, all parts of time are as one moment that contains all, or an "eternal now". Somehow if one could stand above the normal flow of time-call it a higher or a mufti-dimensional, eternal dimension, we would see a oneness of a whole.

The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once.
....Albert Einstein