End Times Prophecy...
- Thread starter Jpec07
- 223 comments
- 5,725 views
- 2,224
no, the only way for the outter palnets to be pulled in by gravity is for the sun to gain more mass. So thats NOT possible. It'll go like i said, but by then i beleive we humans will have colonized most the galaxy so it won't really matter. so we may watcher earth die through a telescope.
- 935
I still think that an alien invasion is the most likely story for the death of humanity for the next several billion years.
- 2,224
i doubt it
- 935
Why. What is more plausible?
- 2,224
why? how can you be sure?
- 2,224
- 935
There is no way that that could release more dust than the asteriod that *most likely* killed the dinosaurs. NO WAY! That didn't kill everything alive. We would find a way to survive. I don't think that that would result in the end of the human race. The discovery channel also proposes that global warming is going to end the human race. If you look at statistics, the current temperature fluctuations are entirely within acceptable levels. This has happened before. Global warming is entirely theoretical. If you honestly worry about global warming, start a garden and stop using aerosol cans. Seriously. The discovery channel shows whatever gains ratings, not scientific fact.
- 2,224
if there is a nuclear winter than this is enough dust to block sun. this causes nuclear winter. no sun cuases plants 2 die. animals that eats the plants die. we then begine to starve becuase we cannot produce enough food to feed the population.
also they said it was gonna be a really big bang, it will creat a hole in the crust about 30 miles wide. the surronding area would be anilalated (sp?) and the rock and dirt would be ejected miles into the atmosphere and t would spread out covering north america and the eventally cover the globe.
also they said it was gonna be a really big bang, it will creat a hole in the crust about 30 miles wide. the surronding area would be anilalated (sp?) and the rock and dirt would be ejected miles into the atmosphere and t would spread out covering north america and the eventally cover the globe.
- 935
That was extremely random.
I know what a "nuclear" winter is, not that your description is at all comprehensive. I am saying that there is no way that Yellowstone exploding could cause one. You should reread my last post. You might get it.
- 2,224
i did, later i will look into it more beucase i don't know how else to explain it.
- 935
I see you edited that. The Chicxulub crater is 180 MILES IN DIAMETER. That didn't destroy life on Earth. Do you honestly think that the 30 miles in Yellowstone is going to?
- 5,842
- Forgotten Wing
Although this may seem like the truth, I am up on the most modern secular theories on the life cycle of a star. If the sun did happen to turn into a red giant in the future, it would only swallow up everything before the asteroid belt. Do you have any idea how much distance there is between Mars and Jupiter? I can guarantee you, even at light speed the trip would take about 15 minutes (do the math, and it comes up to about 167,580,000 miles, which is much bigger than the sun could ever get...).
- 5,842
- Forgotten Wing
well you're forgetting that 30 miles will expand to leave about a 200-250 mile crater. Although you're right, it wouldn't destroy life on earth, it's only kill up to 1/4 of us (still over a billion people, but we'd still survive). The Bible talks about lots worse stuff happening in the end times, and the sad part is that at least 2,000,000,000 will survive it all, about half will have suffered the whole time. Also, the Bible predicts that the sun will go dark and the moon turn red. IMO, this could be caused by the sun progressing into a red giant (light generated would be less, heat would be greater because we're closer to the sun, reflection off moon would be red). This theory also coincides with the prophecy that the oceans will boil. I'm guessing that the sun advances to the next stage alot sooner than people are thinking it will...
- 2,224
i said hole in the crust not crater
- 935
Hole in Crust = Crater. Yeah.
You might think I am crazy, in which any right state of mind you'd be right, but -we- *americans and out lying countries 
* are going to die a quick painless death because soon everyone is going to turn on us and kill us all with a bombardment of nukes.
- 7,402
I'm (extreme)reform Jewish...I know what a tithe is but I haven't heard it used in my temple. And we rarely go there, and we don't use thier services much at all. And the way it was presented just wasn't right. Not like we would give them anything anyway, they are way over crowded and the way they do things is pretty odd at times. We just go there cause my relitives...I have no friends there, and I hate going there.
Giving money to a temple is a donation, and should not be asked directly for. If they said "we are having a fund raiser to remodel" or something like that then I could possibly see it, but you don't just go up to someone and ask for thousands of dollars and expect to get it. That's rude.
- 3,194
All I can say is ROFLMFAO!
Here's my reply,.. not very original considering it's copied from this web-site <http://www.hero.ac.uk/inside_he/odds_on_apocalypse5051.cfm>
But I've heared a lot of news about this new book,.. on NPR, BBC, and MSNBC. I guess this guy has some decent credibility on his side
Odds on apocalypse
Our final century:
make or break time
for humanity
APOCALYPTIC CONTENDERS are coming thick and fast these days. From SARS to Weapons of Mass Destruction and North Korean nukes, the twenty-first century looks like a perfect place for pessimists.
Martin Rees, the eminent cosmologist and Fellow of the Royal Society, has now provided the essential handbook for prophets of doom. Our Final Century, published by Heinemann, takes a broad look at our prospective Armageddons and concludes that the human race has only a 50/50 chance of making it through the next hundred years.
Reess argument, outlined in accessible pop science style, is familiar enough. While the threat of nuclear apocalypse remains with us, the new century will throw up a terrifying array of new global threats anything from bio-terrorism and dirty bombs to killer robots: we may even one day be threatened by rogue nanomachines that replicate catastrophically, or by superintelligent computers.
This is not even the worst that could happen. Atom-crashing experiments could start a chain reaction that erodes everything on Earth; the experiments could even tear the fabric of space itself, an ultimate Doomsday catastrophe whose fallout spreads at the speed of light to engulf the entire universe. Strewth !
While Cold War apocalypse was held at bay by the deterrent principle of Mutually Assured Destruction, technological advances will put terrifying destructive power in the hands of fanatical individuals. Long before individuals acquire a Doomsday potential indeed, perhaps within a decade some will acquire the power to trigger, at unpredictable times, events on the scale of the worst present-day terrorist outrages. Rees calculates that a nuclear explosion at the World Trade Center, involving two grapefruit-sized lumps of enriched uranium which may already be in the possession of terrorist groups would have devastated three square miles of southern Manhattan, killing hundreds of thousands of people.
Our Final Century is, as the portentous title suggests, somewhat broad in its terms of reference. Reess nightmare vision takes in both the very real the threat of bioterrorism or nuclear accident and the completely wacky superintelligent robots which invent ever more complex machines leading to a spiralling technological Armageddon.
Cataloguing the various ways in the world could end is, however, just part of Reess ambitious scheme. The book includes accounts of the nuclear proliferation treaties and the Pugwash conferences, as well as a potted history of the Cuban Missile Crisis. This author is clearly not shy of offering his ten cents worth on the great events of modern history. On the Cold War, he concludes: I personally would not have chosen to risk a one in six chance of a disaster that would have killed hundreds of millions and shattered the physical fabric of all our cities, even if the alternative was a certainty of a Soviet takeover of Western Europe.
One in six? The odds, it turns out, a just a recap of the Russian roulette metaphor he used on the previous page. The book, aiming at a general readership, reads all too often like pub philosophy: lots of opinion, precious little hard evidence. On travel, for example: Much travel will, however, become superfluous, superseded by telecommunication and virtual reality. This is a startling assertion, given that most experts predict a massive growth in air travel, and ever more congested roads. No evidence is offered to back up the claim.
On nuclear materials, Rees pronounces: Chechen rebels and other subnational groups may already have appropriated some weapons. This terrifying prospect is left unsubstantiated, while the author moves breezily on to the next grave subject on his list.
For an author of Reess eminence, this is a poorly researched and sketchily written excursion into subjects of acute and immediate importance. Attempting to cover everything including two whole paragraphs on the future of energy, and a feeble chapter about the future of space exploration the book manages to be superficial about the most profound issues facing the human race. How much better it would have been if Rees had simply edited the book, with the chapters written by specialists in each field.
The future of mankind may well be uncertain and precarious. To simplify the issues to a 50/50 chance over hundred years of history seems more like a marketing ploy than a scientific thesis.
TM Satterthwaite
Our Final Century, Will the human race survive the twenty-first century? by Martin Rees, is published by Heinemann
Here's my reply,.. not very original considering it's copied from this web-site <http://www.hero.ac.uk/inside_he/odds_on_apocalypse5051.cfm>
But I've heared a lot of news about this new book,.. on NPR, BBC, and MSNBC. I guess this guy has some decent credibility on his side
Odds on apocalypse
Our final century:
make or break time
for humanity
APOCALYPTIC CONTENDERS are coming thick and fast these days. From SARS to Weapons of Mass Destruction and North Korean nukes, the twenty-first century looks like a perfect place for pessimists.
Martin Rees, the eminent cosmologist and Fellow of the Royal Society, has now provided the essential handbook for prophets of doom. Our Final Century, published by Heinemann, takes a broad look at our prospective Armageddons and concludes that the human race has only a 50/50 chance of making it through the next hundred years.
Reess argument, outlined in accessible pop science style, is familiar enough. While the threat of nuclear apocalypse remains with us, the new century will throw up a terrifying array of new global threats anything from bio-terrorism and dirty bombs to killer robots: we may even one day be threatened by rogue nanomachines that replicate catastrophically, or by superintelligent computers.
This is not even the worst that could happen. Atom-crashing experiments could start a chain reaction that erodes everything on Earth; the experiments could even tear the fabric of space itself, an ultimate Doomsday catastrophe whose fallout spreads at the speed of light to engulf the entire universe. Strewth !
While Cold War apocalypse was held at bay by the deterrent principle of Mutually Assured Destruction, technological advances will put terrifying destructive power in the hands of fanatical individuals. Long before individuals acquire a Doomsday potential indeed, perhaps within a decade some will acquire the power to trigger, at unpredictable times, events on the scale of the worst present-day terrorist outrages. Rees calculates that a nuclear explosion at the World Trade Center, involving two grapefruit-sized lumps of enriched uranium which may already be in the possession of terrorist groups would have devastated three square miles of southern Manhattan, killing hundreds of thousands of people.
Our Final Century is, as the portentous title suggests, somewhat broad in its terms of reference. Reess nightmare vision takes in both the very real the threat of bioterrorism or nuclear accident and the completely wacky superintelligent robots which invent ever more complex machines leading to a spiralling technological Armageddon.
Cataloguing the various ways in the world could end is, however, just part of Reess ambitious scheme. The book includes accounts of the nuclear proliferation treaties and the Pugwash conferences, as well as a potted history of the Cuban Missile Crisis. This author is clearly not shy of offering his ten cents worth on the great events of modern history. On the Cold War, he concludes: I personally would not have chosen to risk a one in six chance of a disaster that would have killed hundreds of millions and shattered the physical fabric of all our cities, even if the alternative was a certainty of a Soviet takeover of Western Europe.
One in six? The odds, it turns out, a just a recap of the Russian roulette metaphor he used on the previous page. The book, aiming at a general readership, reads all too often like pub philosophy: lots of opinion, precious little hard evidence. On travel, for example: Much travel will, however, become superfluous, superseded by telecommunication and virtual reality. This is a startling assertion, given that most experts predict a massive growth in air travel, and ever more congested roads. No evidence is offered to back up the claim.
On nuclear materials, Rees pronounces: Chechen rebels and other subnational groups may already have appropriated some weapons. This terrifying prospect is left unsubstantiated, while the author moves breezily on to the next grave subject on his list.
For an author of Reess eminence, this is a poorly researched and sketchily written excursion into subjects of acute and immediate importance. Attempting to cover everything including two whole paragraphs on the future of energy, and a feeble chapter about the future of space exploration the book manages to be superficial about the most profound issues facing the human race. How much better it would have been if Rees had simply edited the book, with the chapters written by specialists in each field.
The future of mankind may well be uncertain and precarious. To simplify the issues to a 50/50 chance over hundred years of history seems more like a marketing ploy than a scientific thesis.
TM Satterthwaite
Our Final Century, Will the human race survive the twenty-first century? by Martin Rees, is published by Heinemann
- 5,842
- Forgotten Wing
Red Eye Racer, that sounds like it'd be a killer Sci Fi movie. But what he said about the 50/50 chance of people surviving doesnn't necessarily mean that we all die. Essentially, it can be translated that he's predicting that half of us will die before 2100. This falls in with Biblical prophecies (only 1/4 of the human race will be left after the 7 years of the reign of the beast).
- 19,699
- Alabamamania
The worst part about end-times propheses is that they're all obviously wrong; religious fundamentalists will kill everyone on the planet before any end-of-the-world scenarios begin to play out.
I also feel that the Book of Revelations is nonsense because it wasn't based on teachings of Jesus nor his followers; it was also written about 200 years after any other of the New Testament books were written. It captured the imagination of the day, and ran with it.
Why is everyone looking for signs of an end of the world, instead of looking for signs of a new beginning to their lives?
I also feel that the Book of Revelations is nonsense because it wasn't based on teachings of Jesus nor his followers; it was also written about 200 years after any other of the New Testament books were written. It captured the imagination of the day, and ran with it.
Why is everyone looking for signs of an end of the world, instead of looking for signs of a new beginning to their lives?
Similar threads
- Poll
