The 2012 movie is coming out soon and I think it might be a good movie (in my opinion of course). I'm a fan of giant explosions and disaster movies. As I watched the trailer, the same question pops up: is the world going to end?
Of course by now everyone has heard of 2012. Mayans predict it, Nostradamus predicts it. And so many other sources of doomsday predictions like the Book of Revelations say the end is nigh. I'm sure everyone has commented on it on one post or another, and everyone has their own opinion on when, how, and if our world, as well as our existence, will end. So I just want to know exactly your opinion on armageddon: the end of teh world.
In my opinion 2012 is possible, but very unlikely. no one can know for sure. However, i guarantee you one way or the other, Earth will be destroyed, wether it be by an expanding and exploding sun, or a 200-mile wide asteroid slamming into the planet. Even the very unlikely possibility that a black hole wanders into our system or a gamma ray burst from a quazar or pulsar just so happened to point in our direction. Earth will disappear, but humanity doesn't. One day Humanity will face a danger, either by the Yellowstone SuperVolcano, a meteor, or the final World War, that will test our ability to survive against insurmountable odds. If we are able to stop or survive a major catastrophe, then that proves that we are ready to face any danger the universe has to throw at us. And yes, we can probably survive a zombie apocalypse
Soo...what do you think?
Note: This kinda has to do with Sins because the Invasion of both the Vasari and Advent will prove wether humanity can fight an alien threat on two fronts.
-I am Noobis, GOD OF FAIL AND NOOBITRY!!!! BOW BEFORE MY FAIL! BOW!!
And those natural disasters would themselves leave telltale indicators of their preasence. A worldwide flood, for example, would leave behind a layer of snadstone & limestone (or their metamorphic varients) all over the world @ a consistent depth (comentsating for plate movement, shearing, faults, and the like), along with aquatic fossils everywhere.
deleted
Both of which were caused by erosion.
Whiskey,
I thought about it, but I'm not going to get into a long religious/scientific argument with you on the Big Bang and age of the Earth or universe. I'm Christian too, but I probably lean towards scientific explanations, so I think we'd be blowing a lot of air at each other for no purpose.
Conversly, you've got the wrong idea about carbon dating (Aviyur, this may be of interest to you, too). It's half-life is roughly 5730, much longer than what you said was the accuracy of it. Additionally, a radioactive isotope's age can be measured much further than the back than its half-life. The accuracy of it is actually limited to something close to 60,000 years. Now understand that at that point it can be off by a few hundred years, but it would still give the right approximate age. [Wikipedia on Radiocarbon Dating]
Additionally, they don't use carbon dating for very old things. Just as you said, it wouldn't make any sense. However, there are plenty of other isotopes with ages ranging from the small (like Carbon14) to the rediculously long (Uranium is actually pretty short, but it's the longest useful one). [Radiometric dating]
The Grand Canyon was made by the Colorado River. Plus, that's not the sort of thing you would see with a worldwide rise in sea levels.
As for the "Ararat Anomaly", isn't it strange that noone has actually found any sort of ship there? The only "proof" is in a series of grainy pictures of what looks like a piece of rock.
Of course, the age of the Earth isn't something that I think, 'If you don't think the Earth is 10k years old or younger, you can't be Christian', because that's stupid. The Earth's age is something that's not actually mentioned (at least not directly) in the Bible. Ergo, it's not a dealbreaker, or even a requirement to believe the Earth is a certain age.
Although if your Christian, then you know that the Earth can't be 4.3 BILLION years old. It's just impossible I have to say.
You have no reason to believe such a statement. These "creationist scientists", did a study yes? Where are these academic studies by reputable people displayed?
If you've ever studied astronomy you know just how silly what your saying is. We know ALOT more about the universe than you seem to believe, and without a doubt, the age of the universe is older than you claim. It probably IS VERY CLOSE ~ 13.7 billion years. Why is it that repeated studies of different methods come close to the same number? Look at the black body spectrum curve of the big bang radiation, what date does it lead you to? 13.7 billion years. Look at the intensity of gamma ray pulses that we can see, do the backwork on that, what do you get? ~13.7 Look at expansion of the universe using hubbles constant, 13.7 billion years.
Whiskey is a Christian creationist. I am a Christian Evolutionist.
Sound strange? Not really. One way of describing it could be to say that God created the tools by which life came into being. If the world is only 10,000 years old, then why would God deceive us into thinking it was older? Surely a better way would be to create the tools, and then allow it to evolve by itself. I believe it was the Archbishop of Canterbury who, upon hearing of Darwin's theory, said something along the lines of "What wonderful tools God uses", meaning how Evolution creates life. I'm British, and most British Christians have a good laugh about how the Creationists in America argue with the Evolutionists.
Anyway, IMO Noah's flood comes from the stories of the flooding of the Black Sea basin (about 10,000 years ago), which would certainly have been the whole world for the people living there.
Anyway this thread was originally about how 2012 is not the end of the world. How did we get here?
So they are reputable because you say they are? That's not a defense. I attended lectures from the head of the american astronomical society. It was the most enlightening class i've ever taken. I don't claim the universe is 13.7 billion years old, but i'll tell you, it's NOT 10,000 years old.
The "big band" is much more likely to have happened from an alternate dimension colliding with ours. Although, THAT is pure theory. Soon hopefully the LHC will offer ensight to the dimensions we currently perceive, and if gravity truly is a constant.
Or zombie apocalypse' as a result of a chemical companies medling in prolonging human life.
Im intrigued.
Egads - and I came here from Conservapedia to get away from you guys! HOW DO YOU KEEP FINDING ME???
Face it, the story of Creation is almost, almost, very nearly, impossible to be the truth. I'd say there's less than 1% chance it's actually true. Evolution is by far the most reputable theory for the beginning of life. Creation "science," isn't. It's basically, "religious science," which is a HUGE oxymoron! On the topic of Christianity, throughout history it has only proven to be a terrible burden on the Human race. At every turn, Christianity has struggled to keep back science, and to keep people from finding out the truth. From witchcraft to Evolution, Christianity has been like a disease. That's the truth, and if you don't like it, oh, well!
Why do you think the Pope rejects birth control? Because if his followers started using birth control, he would start losing followers. And that's what scares me. All these (*conservative!* *cough*cough*) fanaticists are reproducing faster than people like me!
So to all those people out there like me who aren't fooled, who are bright and, also, empathetic to other humans, I am calling upon you to do your world a sacred duty.
Go out into our world, and start ******* every member of the opposite sex you meet. I mean it. Just **** eveyone you see. Trust me, you need to spread your genes before others do theirs.
BTW, that last part was a JOKE. I'm not serious. . . . . OR AM I? (Answer: No)
So christian science is belief now? I thought we were debating scientific discoveries here as you were telling everyone else they were wrong about the age of the earth/universe. I'm not here to critize you for your beliefs as a christian, you can believe whatever you want, but understand that they are infact, just that. Beliefs.
I encourage you to become educated about that which you do not agree with, if you truly have your faith it shouldn't compromise it. But one thing I would not do, is just blindly believe anything somone says (christian scientists?) because it supports what you already believe even if their claims are ill founded.
I'll leave it at that.
Lemme insist -- *a* God.
Mayans had theirs. As do many bazillions of others swearing by a doctrin so wisely devised that whomever dares challenging it is considered heretic or evil.
How quick we forget that truth isn't about belief but rather empirical evidence of probabilities that lead to proof safely protected by rational (current, but still a result) intelligence.
Problem is, the Universe isn't 13.7 billion years **OLD** -- dark matter (miscalculations, in fact) proves that its at least 5 to 8 billions more than that specific estimation. Kinda puts Quantum mechanics (or even, string theory) in a bowl of multi-verses, btw.
Only time will prove GOD, if it hasn't already.
Sooooo, back on topic; history records world-scale events for us to observe our past in order to try predicting some future -- thus, through human driven interactions WITH Earth... we define the present which, as a consequence, can determine any alternate variations of the future. Deduction? We influence events under our control.
ETs have some of their own, too. They were, they are or they will be included in our perception of time, distance & reality.
It didn't originally begin w/ evolution: the process is called abiogenisis. We don't actually know how life first began, although we are getting closer to an answer all the time.
This is actually not true, ONLY if you're basing it on hubbles constant is this true. Theres been several cases laid out that in consideration of dark energy you end back up around 13.7 billion years. I'll have to get my book out when I get home
Special FX looks great, Emmerich has enough productivity reputation to convince any big Hollywood corporate executives to invest in his projects rather than some of others (better or worst, btw), this film isn't about acting it's about racking up audience tickets (just as much as any other blockbusters presented to the public every summer since Spielberg's Jaws stormed into the trend of tent-pole cash grabbers from crowds), 2012 is a myth, zombie apocalypse fits the horror genre perfectly if you like that kind of stuffy shitty scary stunny filty bloody violent "entertainment".
There, feeling any better?
I went to Abrams' Star Trek. DVD cash for it already reserved.
I might find some spare money to spend on District-9... but i doubt it, since my food bills have been steadily increasing for about 6 to 12 months in a row. Rent went higher, phone, ISP, cable, clothing -- everything. Revenu isn't though, strangely it has LOWERED over the last 4 years -- blame the capitalists trying to recuperate their losses on the market crashes of late.
So, ya know... 2012 or zombies. Or insults & threats by ANY forum users.
I've got much more important "problems" to cope with than being bothered, too.
There, understood?
Isn't there one about peanut butter disproving evolution too?
According to the point of origin "theory", the snap buildup of the big-bang (conditional to the calcutated mass ***OBSERVABLE***) is additional to the 13.7 billions figure.
Knowing the amount of energy produced, some phycisists speculate a 'period' of non-time (howerer strange this notion may seem to many people) had to occur before matter shuffled the +/- 50kms (really, THAT small) universe_bubble into the expansion momentum necessary to turn dimensions on, so to speak.
Thus, the 5 to 8 gap. Unmeasurable rationally, but still theorizable until all mass is accounted for.
Interesting, never read that theory.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
