Great Cons: time travel, cryogenics & transporters The world has heard of all three ideas.  For the first, it was H.G. Wells. novel and subsequent movies, for the second it has been made more famous by the Ted Williams debacle and the last was vry prominent in the Star Trek series and movies. These are called great cons because they suck vulnerable people into believing they actually can work or they are viable options for human life. The main premise of each are as follows:  1. Time Travel-- has as its main idea that life is ongoing in the past and that the future is happening even as we speak. 2. Cryogenics-- believes that people can be frozen and brought back to life in later years when science and technology has advanced enough to cure what various ailments people suffered from in the late 20th and early 21st century. 3. Transporters-- Has as its main idea that the human body can be broken down into individual molecules and transporter to another physicalplace then be reconstructed at that point without harm to the person being transported. All three basically say the same thing, people are afraid to die and want to live no matter what, though the 3rd option is less so than the other two. Yet all three ideas ignore what scripture says: "it is appointed unto man once to die, then the judgment" It seems to be the endeavor of the secular world to prolong life as long as possible even though there is a restriction or two placed upon longevity.  Secular man does not want to die because they have no hope and the above ideas reflect that fear.  They forget, for the first two options, that people have died andno longer exist.  If they were successful in traveling back into time, all they would find would be an empty earth.  Time travel does not change the rules of God, the people of the past  are dead. The same for cryogenics.  Their customers have all died andno matter how quick they get to the body to apply their technological processes, the person is gone.  They will not be able to bring a person back from the dead andevenif they did, what did they bring them back to--a few more years of life only to face death again.  Not very appealing as the person would face the same diseases, the same problems, the same rules as before. Then the transporting of people ignores the facts of life- take a body apart and the person dies.  The secular world do not hold the keys of life and death, thatis something beyond their control and authority and try as they might, they cannot change the simple rules of life--people will die inspite of all their efforts. All three ideas are great cons because the supporters of each can  make large amounts of money by providing false hopes in the effort to dupe unsuspecting people. There is no realiastic chance that the advocates of each can produce any realistic results and fulfill what they promise. It is unrealistic to go against God's rules and these efforts above just show the waste of time and resources that are a result of the secular world's efforts to find alternatives to God's word.  They won't succeed and peopleneed to stop being paranoid about death for their is one option that does provide what it says and that is found in John 3:16, God's plan of salvation. If one wants to live forever, this is their only hope.  Don't be fooled by imposters for you are being conned by the devil with such fairy tales.