Posted on 04/24/2006 10:16:52 AM PDT by Chicos_Bail_Bonds
Destroying the Earth is harder than you may have been led to believe.
You've seen the action movies where the bad guy threatens to destroy the Earth. You've heard people on the news claiming that the next nuclear war or cutting down rainforests or persisting in releasing hideous quantities of pollution into the atmosphere threatens to end the world.
Fools.
The Earth was built to last. It is a 4,550,000,000-year-old, 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000-tonne ball of iron. It has taken more devastating asteroid hits in its lifetime than you've had hot dinners, and lo, it still orbits merrily.
(Excerpt) Read more at livescience.com ...
that's great...bump for later finish
LOL
LOL
Fire and Ice
by Robert Frost
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To know that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
The Earth will be consumed by the sun as it expands into a red giant passed our orbit several billion years from now.
Long since uninhabitable, the moon is also moving away from the earth a little bit each year too.
What ever possibly becomes of humans by then? We will either be extinct or some kind of gods I imagine.
Either way, not our problem.
Really???
Towers Online - The News Service of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
April 13, 2006 By Jeff Robinson
Excerpts:
"Trustees at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary on April 11 unanimously approved the creation of two new theological study centersthe Center for Theology and the Arts, and the Center for Theology and Law, during the board's annual spring meeting.
Seminary President R. Albert Mohler Jr. said the new study centers aim at equipping pastors and church leaders to think biblically about pivotal issues which dominate contemporary culture.
"One of the ways we want to lead Southern Baptists is through helping evangelicals and Southern Baptists in particular to engage some of the most critical issues of our day," Mohler said.-
"This is not a time for Christians to be out-thought by the world, but in general that is what happens. We find the church behind the times in thinking about some of the most crucial issues of our day."
Mohler also announced the appointment of two new faculty members to lead the centers. [snip] ...
...Mohler also named Kurt Wise as the new director for Southern's Center for Theology and Science, and professor of theology and science. Wise currently serves on the faculty of Bryan College in Dayton, Tenn., where he is also director of the Center for Origins Research.
Wise earned both a doctor of philosophy and master of arts in paleontology from Harvard University. He and his wife Marie have two daughters.
Wise replaces William Dembski, who is leaving Southern Seminary to join the faculty at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary so he can be closer to his family.
"With the addition of Kurt Wise, we are recognizing that creation is a ground zero theological crisis point right now in American culture and even in our churches," Moore said. [snip] ..
In other business, trustees: .... Heard a report from President Mohler that Southern's enrollment has topped 4,000 students for the first time in the seminary's history."
*
Here are a couple of interesting items I found on the web regarding Kurt Wise: [1] 7/3/2003 "Ok, I just got a email from Dr. Wise. This is what he said:
"I am a young-age creationist because the Bible indicates the universe is young. Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young for scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant. Thus I would suggest that the challenge you are trying to meet is unmeetable." ~ Kurt Wise
[2] December 19th 2004 Theologyweb.com
Post # 7:
"...there is new breed of YEC out there, of which Kurt Wise is an example, who recognize that there are scientific problems with their Weltanschauung. I knew Kurt was exceptional, but there are more of his stripe. Affectionately, I'd like to refer to them as neo-YECs, as opposed to the Wieland-Ham-Morris-Safarti-Jorge YECs for which I would propose the oxymoronic moniker paleo-YECs."
*
Of course, that sort of stance rightly invites articles such as this from snickering, rabid atheists like Richard Dawkins:
Sadly, an Honest Creationist - by Richard Dawkins
"Conflicts between Science and the Bible arise from either a lack of scientific knowledge or a defective understanding of the Bible." ~ Moses Maimonides
Click my screen name and scroll 1/3 of the way down the page to these two items:
[1] What were Galileo's scientific and biblical conflicts with the Church?
[2] "..In many ways, the historic controversy of creation vs. evolution has been similar to Galileo's conflict, only with a reversal of roles..."
Rush is going to talk about this article in the next hour. Considering this is an old article, I suspect he or his team may be lurking here
Won't the Earth be destroyed if Karl kranks up the machine to 15? I think they forgot that one...
Except in the real world that would not happen.
"the moon is also moving away from the earth a little bit each year too."
So, are the tides getting a little bit lower each year too?
"Rush is going to talk about this article in the next hour. Considering this is an old article, I suspect he or his team may be lurking here" ~ mnehrling
My post in the Rush thread gives them a heads up to this thread. He's talking aboutit right now. :)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1620498/posts?page=425#425
If you say so. I personally haven't given it much thought.
Lunar tides, yeah. But with a lunar recession rate on the order of a centimeter per year... the tidal changes aren't exactly noticable.
Is everybody kind of overlooking something. While it might not actually destroy the planet, an all out global nuclear war would make the planet uninhabitable. The planet would survive, but we would be toast(ed).
Actually, they're missing something.
There is small but finite chance that all these physicists playing with super-colliders in their quest for "strange matter" might manager to actually unravel the entire universe!
Does that count?
No, it's science fact. I regret to inform you that it doesn't magically change into science fiction just because you personally choose not to believe it.
- The Age of the Earth
- The Earth is accepted by scientists to be around 4.5 billion years old. But how do they know the Earth is this old? Some of the lines of evidence for an ancient Earth are presented.
- The Geological Time Scale
- Few discussions in geology or evolution can occur without reference to geologic time. In this article, the standard time scale used by geologists is depicted and described. See also Niel Brandt's Evolutionary and Geological Timelines.
- Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale
- Radiometric dating and stratigraphic principles are combined to establish the conventional geological time scale. Scientists apply these principles to date rocks, which can then be used to assign ages to fossils.
- Changing Views of the History of the Earth
- How did we go from thinking Earth was a young planet to the realization that it is ancient, with a four and a half billion year history?
- Isochron Dating Methods
- The isochron radiometric dating technique (and related ones) is widely used in isotope geology, and does not fall prey to many common creationist criticisms of radiometric dating. This essay introduces the technique and shows why it is so reliable.
Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective
Radiometeric Dating Does Work!Are Radioactive Dating Methods Consistent With Each Other?
Breakthrough Made in Dating of the Geological Record
Formation of the Hawaiian Islands
How Old is the Earth: A Response to “Scientific” Creationism
I was about to make the same point with regards to the folks who pointed out that the Earth has survived collisions with Mars-sized asteroids, having a molten surface, etc... Yeah, the Earth survived in the *long* run, but it was uninhabitable for millions of years after each of those events, which needless to say would count as "the end of the world" for all practical purposes, from the perspective of anything living on the Earth, including us. Or to quote REM, "the end of the world as we know it", even if not the final end of this big ball of rock.
The article is pretty clear that the goal is not to make the earth uninhatible, but to make it cease be a planet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.