Totenkopf Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 No. Nostradamus was an idiot and the Mayans had no idea of knowing this. It's far more creepy that 44% of Americans think the world will end in less than half a century. Where do you get that figure from, anyway? I suspect that in a nation of 300 million +/-, it's probably quite high. More likely to reflect a pessimism about the possibility of an NBC war ending the world "as we know it" in our lifetimes. I'm thinking giant Marshmallow man J/K Man, I'd better get busy setting up that Stay Puff franchise in Pyongynag, I think that KJI would love that idea. Better not tell him about Dr. Venkman, though.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth InSidious Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 No. Nostradamus was an idiot and the Mayans had no idea of knowing this. Do you know, you're much older than you look... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 Do you think the world will end in 2012? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Avery Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 A girl I used to know still owes my $5 for our bet. She bet the world would end on 6/6/06. I bet that it wouldn't. Guess who won? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredi Posted June 29, 2007 Author Share Posted June 29, 2007 No. Wow.... that was a straight answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 A girl I used to know still owes my $5 for our bet. She bet the world would end on 6/6/06. I bet that it wouldn't. Guess who won? An exceedingly silly bet. For her to win, she would have to be right about the world ending, which'd mean that the $5 would be obsolete (unless she re-phrased the bet to 'the world will begin to end...' - if nuclear war was breaking out she might need all the resources she could get her hands on). At most, she stood to gain nothing. At worst, she would lose $5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Yeah, taking such a bet should be a no-brainer though. If you lose, you pay nothing and if you win....you get "free" $$ (unless your pal's a welsher, no offense to the Welsh amongst us ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon92 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 A girl I used to know still owes my $5 for our bet. She bet the world would end on 6/6/06. I bet that it wouldn't. Guess who won? Uhh...The little girl? Anyway, the world [or most of it] will more likely succum to Global Warming than asplode because of some Mayans. And who the hell was Nostradamus? Wasn't there a Hunchback from somewhere like that? Seriously...The world will not end in 2012. It's more likely that the sun blew up now and the end will come in 8 Minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoiuyWired Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 A girl I used to know still owes my $5 for our bet. She bet the world would end on 6/6/06. I bet that it wouldn't. Guess who won? Dude I would love to take some bets like that. I mean, you never have to pay out if the world ends. Personally I don't think the world would end anytime soon unfortunately. So anyone yelling "world's ending" should understand that. The worse possable case of a comet hit can be spotted years away. And I don't think we will see any DeathStar orbiting the planet within the next few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrPhil2501 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 eh, I wouldn't believe in this "end of the world in 2012" crap. I mean, take a look at the Y2K theory, for example. Did our computers and Electricity ever shut down? I take it you all know the answer to that question. But based on Scientific Research, Study and facts, it is estimated that the world will end in about five million years time (or was it billion? eh...) because the Sun will eventually turn into a Red Dwarf or something and kill the Earth with it's harsh radiation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Zionosis Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 No it won't end, there were people claiming the world would end in the year 2000, and look we're 7 years in, if it ends it will be way nearer to the year 3000, not even that, but w/e Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediMaster12 Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Truth of the matter is that the world will end on its own time. A friend of mine, Carlos, takes each day and lives it to the fullest. Needless to say we think alike on that account but I also like to make each day meaningful. Maybe that is the way to go. Mama Jae: Nice answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 The only perspective that supports this is the theory of Alien visitors. From any other perspective, you can tell the Earth will NOT end in 2012. We haven't had the first two years of Tribulation, the sun isn't even close to nova, the only way I can think of would be nuclear war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Smaug Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 The world won't end at 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredi Posted July 5, 2007 Author Share Posted July 5, 2007 the only way I can think of would be nuclear war. Global Warming or an asteroid too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Spitfire Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 Asteroid? No, we will be able to adapt to an asteroid. When an asteroid hit the dinosoars, the reason they went extinct was that the asteroid poisened the entire vegetation supply across the entire world, and that starved the herbivores to death, and the herbivores dying starved the carnivores to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 Firstly, Padawan, Global Warming isn't all it's cracked up to be. Besides which, it needs more than 5 years to end the world. Secondly, an intercontinental ballistic missile would do wonders for an asteroid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 Global Warming isn't all it's cracked up to be. What is it "cracked up to be?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth InSidious Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 ~snip~ Cleaned up off-topic post, this part of post isn't necessary anymore - Cz On the topic, it seems to me that the eruption of a supervolcano is as likely as anything to destroy the Earth. Not so much the eruption itself, but the fallout would be fairly devastating to life as we know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 Asteroid? No, we will be able to adapt to an asteroid. Not if it's as large as what caused the Chicxulub Crater. That thing was only about 6 miles wide and it is believed to have caused the K-T Extinction event, wiping out the dinosaurs. Consider the fact that there are many, many asteroids out there with widths in excess of hundreds of miles and it seems quite unlikely that we would be able to survive an asteroid impact of that magnitude. When an asteroid hit the dinosoars, the reason they went extinct was that the asteroid poisened the entire vegetation supply across the entire world, and that starved the herbivores to death, and the herbivores dying starved the carnivores to death. Um, interesting hypothesis, but not one commonly accepted by the scientific community. The prevailing theory is that a large meteorite hit the earth and caused a massive fluctuation in temperature, not to mention sending up tons and tons of soot and ash into the atmosphere, blocking out sunlight. Plants would die from not being able to carry out photosynthesis rather than being poisoned. Herbivores, if not killed by the heat/tsunami/various other impact-related environmental conditions, would die from lack of food. Same with carnivores. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 I think that would depend a lot upon where it hit. The reason I say that is that I think that the elites (globally, even) probably have provisions set aside in deep underground areas in the event of a cataclysmic global catastrophe. Most people will die, but the adaptability of humans may be the trump card in preventing our complete extinction as a species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 Are you kidding? The Tunguska Event was caused by a 20 meter in diameter asteroid and exploded with approximately 20 megatons of force. That's more than a lot of our nuclear weapons. Heck, the largest nuclear weapon ever tested, the Tsar Bomba, was only 50 megatons. An asteroid 100 miles in diameter would likely destroy the entire planet. And I don't mean just render it uninhabitable, I mean Earth becomes a second asteroid belt. Even if we did survive, the planet would be so badly damaged I don't think it would ever recover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Avery Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 KT Event Theory: A 10 Kilometer (6 mile) asteroid, about the size of Manhattan, hit earth with the force of 100 trillion tons of TNT, about 2 million times that of the strongest thermonuclear bomb ever test. It put earth into a 10 year long winter filled with soot, debris, acid rain, and all sorts of natural events. Eventually, mammals emerged to take control over the earth and evolved into current day humans and such. That is the current day accepted theory. If a second KT event hit us it would end humanity. We can adapt well, but without vegetation the animals die and our food source disappears. Without food, humanity is toast within that 10 year period alone. Now if a 100 mile asteroid would hit us, it would most likely put quite a dent into earth but I doubt make it inhabitable. Although, it would be pretty lifeless all over for millions of years, but so was Earth at the KT event and it still recovered, especially considering much of the ocean life on the planet was still alive when KT happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 Naturally, it's going to depend on the size of the body hitting the planet. If a moon sized body hit the planet, it would be as devasting for all life here as if the sun went supernova. Curtains for all. If it's more like the one believed to have taken out the dinosaurs, though, well.....we're here now. Also, the tunguska object was an airburst, which has different implications than a ground strike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 Firstly, Padawan, Global Warming isn't all it's cracked up to be. Besides which, it needs more than 5 years to end the world.Global warming is going to do a lot of damage, already is, but it's not going to destroy the world. Secondly, an intercontinental ballistic missile would do wonders for an asteroid.Even if you got it into space, all it'd do would be shatter it into pieces, which would all then hit Earth. It wouldn't make a difference. But as Tot says, it all depends on the size of the asteroid. And, I suppose, its composition and site of impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.