Why stop there?

I often wonder if Humanity (in whatever form) survives for long enough if our far, far distant descendants will become Gods like the mysterious Firstborn from 2001.

I can tell you with absolute certainty, without a time machine, that our distant descendants will never become gods. Assuming that we survive, we'll continue to evolve into other organisms. Turning into mythical beings isn't an option.

These are good ones!

I'd try and find out if Jesus's Resurrection was true or if some sneaky begger just smuggled His body out from the tomb and buried it somewhere. Trouble with that is of course getting the time machine to Jerusalem, learning enough Old Hebrew to get by in Palestine once I'd arrived back in time.
I know Doc Brown managed to solve the former problem somewhat, but you'd still have to get the thing out there although it would help with historical mysteries closer to home.

I did not mean literally.

There are no deities.

I meant with the incredibly vast advances in future technology which will give the beings who we become God like powers - the Firstborn (if you have read the novels) were simply the first organic intelligence to evolve in our galaxy.

What happened to David Kelly?

God-like powers, eh? You mean like creating the Universe? Or omnipotence/omniscience/omnipresence?

Never going to happen.

In what way?

Near omnipotence/omniscience - I never said it would happen I was simply speculating on the possibilities.

How are you so certain about what could happen in tens of thousands or even millions of years?

Yes we will probably become extinct - but then again we might not.

It wasn't Henry VIII's fault that his wives weren't having boy babies. It wasn't anybody's fault, it's just a quirk of nature.

i would want to find the truth about what really happend that night with that british couple (you know the one's that really like tapas) on holiday.

It was a quirk if his reproductive system. Nothing to do with theirs. I'd tell him that firmly.

I know you didn't say it would happen. You said you'd go forward in time to see if it happens. And I'm saying it won't, unless you're going to redefine 'god-like powers' to mean something much less than god-like.

We will never have the power to create the Universe, and we will never achieve anything remotely like omnipotence/omniscience. They're fictitious concepts.

You can tell him as firmly as you like, it still won't make it true.

It's not true that the sex of his children were quirks of his reproductive system? That's the phrase you used! Make your mind up!

Good one! There hasn't been nearly enough feathers ruffled about such a suspicious event.

I would like to see the proto-feathers, feathers and quills on the non-avian dinosaurs.

A T.rex (for example) in full mating display plumage must have been a truly awe-inspiring sight.

Plus watch two bull sauropods in mating battle - for the very largest species - a couple of hundred tons of muscle and bone colliding in a brutal war for dominance would have been remarkable (and very frightening) spectacle.

Marching up to a Tudor king and telling him that it's his fault that his wives aren't giving birth to any boys sounds like a sure fire way to finding yourself kneeling before the Executioner's block, his axe over your head, a crowd baying for your blood, etc.

I plan to have one foot firmly in my time machine while I do it so as to make a quick getaway

That is not the phrase that I used, nor what I meant. I said it's just a quirk of nature. Without wishing to explain human reproduction in its entirety, I meant that meiosis produces equal numbers of sperm with an X or a Y chromosome, and it's down to pure happenstance which type makes it to the egg.

Are you saying that Henry XII was physiologically incapable of siring a son?

Oh bless! You really don't have to explain reproduction to me. But thanks for the biology lesson I understand the science quite well.

I'll explain a different way for you. He blamed his wives for not producing sons. I would point out (maybe writing down your basic, easy to understand explanation to leave with him in case he gets forgetful) that the 'quirk of nature' that caused it came from him and not them.

But it didn't come from him. If I toss a coin and it comes up 'heads' that isn't my fault is it? You seem to be saying that he is culpable for something that is essentially random. You said, "it was his bloody fault his wives weren't having boy babies", but that simply isn't true.

I don't know whether we're allowed to mention this even obliquely but here goes.. I'd dial in 3rd of May 2007 around 21:00 to 22:00.

And now I have changed it to quirk of nature to suit you. Yet still you don't seem happy.

Of course when I get there I'll just tell him it's his bloody fault and you won't be able to stop me as you will be in 2016

...

If Henry XIII somehow only produced sperm with X chromosomes then that would certainly count as a quirk of his reproductive system and he would be to blame for not producing boy babies, but AFAIK he had a normal reproductive system that was equally likely to result in a boy as it was a girl.

I'm not big on history, but having glanced at Wikipedia it looks like he did in fact sire more sons than daughters, rendering this entire conversation rather pointless.