New Earth Age in 2012?

[The Real Picard]

Screw this planet! I'm moving!

[SeVeR]

Bacteria can be harmful to the human body, but your analogy isn't sound because the Earth is not alive. The Earth is a rock with water and weather systems. The only harm we as a species can do is to ourselves and to the other species on the Earth, not to the Earth itself. We certainly can change the Earth in ways that are harmful to ourselves, and that has to be a result of imperfect genetics that cause one to place the needs of the self over the needs of the species.

 

"Killing our biosphere" is such a relative term; we could kill another planetary biosphere in order to escape a catastrophe on Earth, and thus continue our species by changing another world to our needs. As such, we are not killing anything on Earth, merely changing. Unfortunately we are changing our world in ways that are disadvantageous to ourselves. Having said that, there are reasons for this which i will get onto in the final paragraph.

 

It's pretty hard to be confused about the `Jesus = Sun' part. The sun is the astronomical representation of God, and the role of the Sun in relation to the position of the stars, and even the star's names, is the same as Jesus' role in the story of his birth and some subsequent stories. Granted the pisces/fish thing isn't convincing, but it's only supposed to be cir!@#$%^&*stantial evidence to the 'new-age = new astronomical epoc` argument, which is fairly convincing. That is all in addition to the astronomical argument for the Jesus myth and that's all in addition to the borrowing of countless stories and symbols from the Pagan religion, which focusses alot on astronomical signifance. It's all supposed to add up, and in my opinion it does.

 

In the case of greener energies, survival is of course the main motivator. The rich are motivated by their current situation of wealth, yet would gladly switch to greener energies once the threat to their survival outweighs the benefits of wealth. The poor are motivated by the need for greener energies alone, as their wealth is not threatened by abandoning the oil industry. The rich may wait too long to act, and may even allow some of the poor to die before acting. It's not entirely wrong for them to do so. The poor may seek to eliminate the rich, and its not wrong for them either. Such is the struggle for the weak to overcome the strong and the strong to preserve their position of strength. It really is beyond good and evil, it's human nature.

Edited August 23, 2007 by SeVeR

[Dav]

In the case of greener energies, survival is of course the main motivator. The rich are motivated by their current situation of wealth, yet would gladly switch to greener energies once the threat to their survival outweighs the benefits of wealth. The poor are motivated by the need for greener energies alone, as their wealth is not threatened by abandoning the oil industry.

 

This is why an increace in demand from your average joe will cause the rich to change.

 

If more pooer people demand green and are willing to pay a bit more for it the wealthy will so work out they will make more money by investing in greener products and will change with the market.

[Tiq]

Maybe it's just me, but these days I feel like the season are kind of shifting. Winter starting later, and ending a little later than usual, and summer starting a little later than scheduled as well. I've heard about all the evidence of global warming and stuff, but personally speaking, I don't think the winters are getting any warmer. Now this summer was kind of up and down. The last two weeks, it has been raining, but prior to that it was hot as !@#$%^&*...maybe i'm just overspeculating

 

Anyway about the theory. It's really interesting, but I think I will cling to what SeVer said instead of think about what kind of !@#$%^&* can be expected in the future

[Shran]

LOL! No one truly wants to think about what kind of !@#$%^&* can be expected in the future though. Mainly because at this time we are helpless to do anything about it at an interstellar scale. I think we need to speed things up with getting our planet healthy again and solve our political problems. After we have prevented self-destruction have have obtained peace, we can move on with space travel. Hopefully then, we will be safer from dangers of the universe. If we can get past 2012 okay, I think it'll be a safe bet we will have a chance. Edited August 24, 2007 by Shran

[Dav]

Maybe it's just me, but these days I feel like the season are kind of shifting. Winter starting later, and ending a little later than usual, and summer starting a little later than scheduled as well. I've heard about all the evidence of global warming and stuff, but personally speaking, I don't think the winters are getting any warmer. Now this summer was kind of up and down. The last two weeks, it has been raining, but prior to that it was hot as !@#$%^&*...maybe i'm just overspeculating

 

Anyway about the theory. It's really interesting, but I think I will cling to what SeVer said instead of think about what kind of !@#$%^&* can be expected in the future

 

In the UK we have had a mild winter, a colder and wetter summer the usual causing flooding and general devastation.

 

The Americas are experiencing more extreme and frequent hurricanes, the arctic ice sheet is melting to the point were the Russians were able to get a sub under the north pole and stick a flag on the sea bed, something that would have been impossible pre-warming.

 

 

I think sometime the global warming thing does get a tad over hyped into super doomsday imminent but that's still no excuse not to act now.

[AstroProdigy]

Bacteria can be harmful to the human body, but your analogy isn't sound because the Earth is not alive. The Earth is a rock with water and weather systems. The only harm we as a species can do is to ourselves and to the other species on the Earth, not to the Earth itself. We certainly can change the Earth in ways that are harmful to ourselves, and that has to be a result of imperfect genetics that cause one to place the needs of the self over the needs of the species.

 

"Killing our biosphere" is such a relative term; we could kill another planetary biosphere in order to escape a catastrophe on Earth, and thus continue our species by changing another world to our needs. As such, we are not killing anything on Earth, merely changing. Unfortunately we are changing our world in ways that are disadvantageous to ourselves. Having said that, there are reasons for this which i will get onto in the final paragraph.

 

It's pretty hard to be confused about the `Jesus = Sun' part. The sun is the astronomical representation of God, and the role of the Sun in relation to the position of the stars, and even the star's names, is the same as Jesus' role in the story of his birth and some subsequent stories. Granted the pisces/fish thing isn't convincing, but it's only supposed to be cir!@#$%^&*stantial evidence to the 'new-age = new astronomical epoc` argument, which is fairly convincing. That is all in addition to the astronomical argument for the Jesus myth and that's all in addition to the borrowing of countless stories and symbols from the Pagan religion, which focusses alot on astronomical signifance. It's all supposed to add up, and in my opinion it does.

 

In the case of greener energies, survival is of course the main motivator. The rich are motivated by their current situation of wealth, yet would gladly switch to greener energies once the threat to their survival outweighs the benefits of wealth. The poor are motivated by the need for greener energies alone, as their wealth is not threatened by abandoning the oil industry. The rich may wait too long to act, and may even allow some of the poor to die before acting. It's not entirely wrong for them to do so. The poor may seek to eliminate the rich, and its not wrong for them either. Such is the struggle for the weak to overcome the strong and the strong to preserve their position of strength. It really is beyond good and evil, it's human nature.

 

I said the BIOSPHERE is alive, not earth. We don't even have the capability to destroy the earth, but what we are doing to the biosphere is making it sick like a person would with harmful bacteria. We probably wouldn't kill it; we'd just make it so sick that it can't support us and when all or almost all of us die it will start to rebuild itself.

 

We can kill a biosphere to suit our needs, but that will probably more costly than simply creating a biosphere from scratch. Besides by simply replacing biospheres we are not solving the problem that is we exist in an unlivable state. We might as well figure out how to maintain a biosphere indefinitely before we venture to colonize other ones.

 

What struck me in Zeitgeist is that he says Jesus is called the Son, but that's sort of a typo when you hear it and they really mean Jesus is the Sun. However, this is an English language think. I don't know ancient Aramaic so I can't comment on that language.

 

Isn't it possible Jesus existed, but most of the stuff in the Bible about him is made up? I'm just not convinced Jesus the man never existed and the video doesn't really prove he never existed. The most it proved is that most of the stuff in the Bible about him is made up. I can see people exaggerating stories about him after his death over the years especially considering the first few centuries had many different ideas of Jesus and what happened with him and only the ones embraced by Constantine really survived.

 

You're right about the rich. It's very understandable why the bottom line is the only thing that matters to most of them. What troubles me is why everyone else is dumb enough to follow them to their own detriment. I guess that is just one of the fundamental flaws of democratic capitalism.

 

2012 isn't a new age. Astrology and people who murder their own to appease the Gods aren't exactly my cup of tea.

 

Also as for some places not getting warmer look at the trend for the entire earth. I took an atmospheric sciences class. I basically heard exactly what I've been hearing from climate scientists; only the paid off scientists (oil companies fund their research if they like what they're saying), the people looking to be famous by not going with the crowd, and the die hard extreme skeptics still deny global warming is happening and a large and growing majority agree the evidence we're causing it is very strong. We won't all die, but there are hundreds of millions of people who will become refugees and natural disasters will only get worse.

Edited August 24, 2007 by AstroProdigy

[SeVeR]

The Sun/Son word similarity is obviously not intentional. The astronomical representation of Christ as the Sun is clearly intentional, but the similarity of the words is merely coincidence. It may have been that the English word "Son" was based on "Sun" (or vice-versa) for this reason, but i doubt it. I think it's a little bit damaging to Zeitgeist to give the impression it may have done about any significance in word similarity. It's obvious that Jesus does represent the Sun, just the similarity of words is probably a coincidence.

 

Isn't it possible Jesus existed, but most of the stuff in the Bible about him is made up?

He may have existed, and when the Bible was written hundreds of years later, the myths were made up from the same astonomical markers that formed almost every religion prior to it.

 

I mean, how much more obvious can you get than:

 

Disciples: "Jesus, where will the next passover be when you are gone?"

Jesus: "Behold, when ye are entered in the city, there shall a man meet you bearing a pitcher of water... follow him into the house where he entereth in"

 

The next astronomical age is Aquarius, the symbol of which is a man holding a pitcher of water.

 

He may have existed, and Zeitgeist never says he didn't, they instead provide the relevent evidence to say he probably didn't. Historians don't do!@#$%^&*ent Jesus. Josephus is a proven forgery; i know because i've researched it myself.

 

The poor follow the rich because the rich have to tools to enslave the minds of the poor. There are enough stupid people in the world who blindly watch the news or who are ignorant to the economic situation we live in. The level of stupidity determines the level of enslavement; as in any system where the strong/rich dominate over the weak/poor. It's why i was so shocked when i arrived in America and had the displeasure of watching Fox News for the first time. There would be public outrage in the UK if we had a channel like that.

 

Yes, 2012 is not a new age, and it's proposterous to think anything will happen in this year based on current knowledge and observation.

 

Global warming skeptics are alot like religionists in their abuse of science. They take a scientific theory and use scientific words to make a point that sounds factual but which is designed to deceive. This links back to what i said earlier: The rich want to keep the oil industry going and will use the stupidity of the poor to spread lies and propaganda. They say things like "The CO2 is nearly all natural", "The Earth has been cooling and warming naturally for millenia", "The 22 year cycle of the Sun is causing the warming".

 

1. The CO2 is nearly all natural, but the greenhouse effect it creates is necessary for us not to be freezing to death right now. The albedo of the Earth tells us that the Earth should be about 60 degrees colder than it is now. The natural CO2 brings us up to livable conditions. None of this means the extra 3% of unnatural CO2 isn't causing a rise in temperatures that is significant enough to affect our environment. This is one example of the deceit of the skeptics.

2. The Earth has been warming and cooling gradually for millenia, but never at the rate it is warming now.

3. A recent study has proven the Sun is not responsible.

 

Yet they use these arguments to convince alot of people that global warming is false, and i believe alot of the people who produce these arguments know exactly what they're doing.

 

You did say "Just like not all bacteria is harmful to the human body, not all species are harmful to the planet", which is not "biosphere". It could mean both, i've just heard alot of people make the mistake. Also, many make the mistake of claiming we are harming our biosphere based on our conquering of the other species on the Earth, they seem to want to demote us to pre-Victorian farmers who live in harmony with nature. We are polluting the Earth, which is changing it's weather systems, which is detrimental to the health of various species on the planet, including ourselves. That's the extent of it. I know thats what you mean, sorry for the word confusion.

Edited August 25, 2007 by SeVeR

[AstroProdigy]

I can easily see how things were made up about Jesus after his death. There were hundreds of years that there was no regulation of what people considered the life of Jesus. This is similar in my opinion, and bear with me, to language. Latin didn't change for centuries because it was controlled and regulated by Rome. Christianity was originally just Judaism with a messiah after all so we can compare this flavor of Judaism to Latin. After Rome fell Latin, like this flavor of Judaism, found itself without regulation and changed into many different languages. It changed and convulsed into many different languages just like this flavor of Judaism. What we end up getting is lots and lots of different Romance languages with the original Latin dead. This can be compared to all the different forms of "Christianity" that existed. In the end most of those "Christianities" were killed off and more diversity was brought in later on. When it comes to Romance languages many of the languages have been killed off or endangered while others have survived. The whole point of this confusing comparison is that when you really look at the historic cir!@#$%^&*stances of Christianity it's basically people trying to out Christianize each other thinking their specific interpretation is righter than others. Why are Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Anglicanism the biggest flavors of Christianity? Because it conquered the most. That's why French, Spanish, and Portuguese are the most spoken Romance languages too. When you really look at the origins of Christianity you must conclude these are all wrong and there probably is no original "right" Christianity, !@#$%^&*uming Christianity is right at all. If it is then it's probably in a dead version or one followed by an obscure and very small group of people. That's why I'm a proud agnostic. We're the only ones willing to admit we don't know !@#$%^&*.

 

Sorry if that was confusing it works better in my head.

 

I must have forgotten and said planet when I meant biosphere. I really don't care if we kill predators. I mean I don't think we should just do it for nothing or for their skins, but if they're in the way or endangering us we should go ahead. We can also use them to reduce exploding deer populations for example. There's nothing wrong with not being nice to nature as long as you're smart enough to create a self sustaining system. The way we're doing things now is just destroying with little replenishing from some liberals who are trying to swim against the tide.

 

I don't know what's going to keep America from falling, Sever. Chances are there's no way to do it. I'm hoping that the hard and humiliating fall that we're getting closer and closer to will finally wake up the masses to rebel from the elites who control the country because I'm afraid if the fall is gradual Americans will never see it and it will only continue to feed into itself forever. Luckily the rest of the world won't stagnate the way we are.

Edited August 25, 2007 by AstroProdigy

[Greased_Lightning]

If the world is going to end in 2012, you know what you should do? Just get really really fat! Go out and totally pig out on a tub of ice cream! Yeah, and if the city thinks I'm gonna pay this parking ticket they are dreaming! HAHAHAHAHAHA!..Ha...Haa...ha...ahhhh... no seriously I'm still gonna pay it, you know, just in case.

 

But yeah, the world has ended dozens of times by now so I'm not worried. Life adapts.

[AstroProdigy]

People forget the end of the world was supposed to come lots of times. After the world doesn't end in 2012 they'll forget in a few years and say the end times are coming in 2020 because the first 2 numbers are the same as the last 2 numbers and thats bad mojo.

[SeVeR]

Christianity is as Darwinistic in its temptations as any natural part of life. It provides us with supposed knowledge, safety, power, eternal life, moral goodness, community, and a path to perfection. It is everything our mind naturally desires, but it is ultimately pernicious, weakening, ignorant, susceptible to great evil, wasteful of life, and an acceptance of failure in the real world. It could be defined as a drug for the mind because once you have convinced yourself of the aforementioned benefits, they are simply too important to give up. We are naturally inclined to accept these benefits, religion is in our genes and defines a path of weakness. It is a test of will to refuse. That is why i despise religion as the perversion of nature.

 

Unfortunately, people interpret this as atheism. They like to polarise based on the strength of my convictions. I am agnostic like yourself.

 

I understand what you say about languages and religion: those that survive, like all things in life, are those with the most Darwinian characteristics. I think that's what you're saying, and it's why i wrote the first paragraph of this post. Christianity is a survivor. Through it's temptations the weak are drawn to it and give it strength, like a venus flytrap if you will.

 

The weak will only overcome the strong if they become strong enough to do so. Strength in our society is education. Education has been declining in America for the last 50 years. Should the weak be allowed to conquer the strong in any other way? Would life be any better if we removed the men in power and opened the door for others? I think not, we must conquer them ourselves, we must prove we are stronger.

 

It's an interesting point, and its why Iraq failed. We did not allow the Iraqis to defeat Saddam by themselves. Any force strong enough to defeat Saddam on the grounds of his sheer cruelty to the population would have brought lasting peace. This is also why charity is wrong (and a principle tenet of Christianity).

[Aileron]

One piece of truth in the origional article is that global warming is not exclusive to Earth. Venus and Mars are also experiencing global warming. The three planets (Venus, Earth, and Mars) have a common Sun but mankind only exists on one of them. Point being, it is likely routine increase in Solar activity, cyclic over a period so long that the last increase occurred prehistorically, which is causing global warming rather than something mankind is doing. (People tend to forget Earth's scale. Earth is not the circular rock on your television screen. Earth is the large object beneath your feet.)

 

Global Warming has been politicised by environmentalists. Under such political pressure, some of the weaker minded scientists probably cracked. Yes there is a proportionality between temperature increase and greenhouse gases, and yes in the proper quan!@#$%^&*ies a Carbon Monoxide atmosphere will hold more heat than a Nitrogen based one. However, the rate at which temperature is increasing is linear, and lots of things increase at a linear rate.

 

Put it this way: The greenhouse gases Carbon Monoxide and now Carbon Dioxide are essentially the product of burned Carbon. Humankind got that Carbon from deposits of coal and oil. All of that coal and oil was previously part of the biosphere. Thus at one time all of that Carbon was in the biosphere, and the Earth though different was still cool enough to support life. Granted "biosphere" does not mean "atmosphere", but one can note that plantlife will absorb Carbon which is in the atmosphere over the long term, and greenhouse gases are a long-term problem.

 

 

 

 

You know, the religious portions of this topic were off-topic, but I will discuss them here. Not many people bother to read the Book of Revelations, and would certainly not expect a non-Christian to have spent time on it. It was written by the apostle John, and opens with him having a vision and being told to write everything he sees down. However, during the course of the entire book John does not prophecy. He gives predictions as to what is going to go on in Heaven and in !@#$%^&*, but not so much in terms of Earth.

 

In fact, the only hard statement on the subject of the apocalypse made in the entire Bible is that at some unknown point in time in the future Earth will be destroyed. That's it. It doesn't specify how, and specificially states that the 'when' is known only by God. The statement is fundimentally undesputable and is also proven by both science and probability.

 

However, if one is using the bible as a means to predict the future, you are missing the point. The point is that first off one's mortal existence will end, and secondly that even if one "immortalizes" themselves with some sort of physical legacy, that legacy will also be destroyed by time. Thus, is is ultimately futile to hoarde physical things, because those things will be taken from you.

 

 

As for Darwinists, the most famous hard-core Darwinist I could think of tried to create a world-wide Eugenics program and to evolve mankind into the "Master race". And the worst thing about Darwinists is that you people don't consider yourselves part of the same group, and so rather than learn from your predecessors' mistakes, you put responsibility for them on other groups of people.

[AstroProdigy]

Global Warming has been politicised by environmentalists.

No global warming has been politicized by Bush and the oil companies that own him. They politicized it because you can't argue with scientific proof just because you don't like it' date=' but if you turn it into a political issue it becomes an "us versus them" issue and you can stall action as long as possible. The exact same thing happened with the tobacco companies years ago in case you forgot and they stalled action for decades because of it. That's the whole point here.

 

Seriously Mars warming has nothing to do with earth warming and any climatologist I've talked to or seen talk has said that it was a load of crap. A small minority might still say they aren't convinced that there's enough proof to prove global warming is real, but this is a complete bull!@#$%^&* argument. Some of the weaker scientists cracked? Wow dude you really have no idea what you're talking about. Seriously you need to think for yourself all you're doing is repeating your party line on everything. They fed their followers the smoke and mirrors argument to delay action as long as possible. You see they will never win the debate, but they must stall action as long as possible or maximum profit. Then when action is stalled as long as possible and the environment is really getting screwed the oil companies will be "friends" to the environment.

 

All of that coal and oil was previously part of the biosphere. Thus at one time all of that Carbon was in the biosphere' date=' and the Earth though different was still cool enough to support life.[/quote']

You're committing a fallacy here in !@#$%^&*uming all greenhouse gases used to be in the atmosphere at the same time. You also forget that even if it were we weren't alive back then. Why assume we can live comfortably then? The present conditions of the continents was also different and you haven't bothered to take into account the coastlines that will be flooded; in fact your argument ignores it.

 

Sorry, but this is a very weak argument overall, but I understand it's hard to argue with the information that was fed to you by FOX News.

 

Hitler wasn't a Darwinist. He perverted everything to suit his own beliefs, kind of like Christians. In fact hating the Jews back then was strictly a Christian phenomena since they believed the Jews crucified Jesus, who is the savior of Christians. People forget that back then in Europe they all hated the Jews. The Jews were everyone's favorite scapegoat to pick on. The difference between the Nazi's and everyone else was they were willing to take it as far as trying to exterminate them. They tried to use Darwinist thinkers to justify their actions, but since Darwinism does not support genocides on a m!@#$%^&* scale, only individual fights for survival, they perverted it to suit their Christian inherited hatred for the Jews. When Nietzsche talked about needing to overcome difficulties he meant that each individual must be given the chance to survive. No government should have the right to kill millions of people because that perverts the survival of the fittest theory. However, the Nazi's still used him to justify their beliefs. Darwinism supports a clear understanding of reality, not perversion of reality. That's what Christianity supports. Do you know why Jews aren't persecuted in the Christian world any more? It's partly because people feel guilty because of the constant Holocaust reminder. It's also because of where they live. A lot of them are now away from the Christian world in Europe. Most of the rest are in the "darn liberal Northeast" where we don't pay any real attention to Christianity. The leftovers are mostly in those "darn liberal European" countries. If you send over a million Jews to Arkansas I can bet there will be calls for another Holocaust down there. The point of this whole argument? Christianity caused the Holocaust not Darwinism. I'm not in the same group as the Nazi's; the Nazi's weren't Darwinists they were nice, salt of the earth, Jew hating Christians. Christians have massacred Jews ever since Constantine perverted Christianity so completely, yet the vast majority of Christians still follow his flavor of Christianity.

[SeVeR]

Whatever Hitler's true intentions, he failed at being a Darwinist because he generated a threat to his own survival that led to his demise. So either he wasn't a Darwinist or he was and didn't understand Darwinism at all. Your choice Aileron.

 

Germany's failure proved that anything Hitler believed about superiority was wrong (not that we needed WW2 to know that). So it's pretty hard to call Hitler a Darwinist unless you already believe Darwinism to be wrong and want to !@#$%^&*ociate it with someone regarded as evil... oh, hi Aileron!

 

It's well known that Nietzsche's sister "filled in the blanks" in his final work with her anti-semitic gibberish after Nietsche went insane. He was far from an anti-semite.

 

Hitler is an interesting one. Often cited by religionists as an atheist, he was probably a hard-core catholic:

 

Hitler: "I got down on my knees and thanked Heaven out of the fullness of my heart for th favour of having been permitted to live in such a time". (about WW1, Mein Kampf, 1914)

Rudolf Hess: "I know Herr Hitler very well personally and am quite close to him. He has an unusually honourable character, full of profound kindness, is religious, a good catholic". (a letter to the Bavarian PM, 1920)

Goerring: "Only a catholic could unite germany" (about Hitler)

Hitler: "We are convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out" (speech, 1933)

Hitler: "I shall remain a catholic forever" (to Gerhard Engel, 1941)

Hitler: The first thing to do is to rescue Germany from the Jew who is ruining our country... We want to prevent our Germany from suffering, as Another did, the death upon the cross". (speech in Munich, 1923)

Hitler: My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loniliness, surrounded by his followers, recognised these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord rose in his might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight for the world against the Jewish poison". (speech, 1922)

 

Global warming increase is only linear for the last 20 years. One can say for most exponential graphs that any small section looks linear. If we happen to look back any further it doesn't look linear. That's not to say linearity is any argument against global warming anyway, it's a pretty weak argument, in fact i can't see any argument. "Plenty of things increase linearly".... so?

 

Speaking as a scientist i can tell you that most scientists believe global warming is man-made, simply because global warming is a scientific theory that requires a scientific understanding. I would guess it's in the region of 90% of scientists. If this is "some of the weaker minded scientists" then you're surely wrong.

 

You probably believe what you're saying because you select your information from Christian/Right-Wing sources. The good thing about science is it factors in all the variables and makes an impartial decision. I'd already shown you how those sources deliberately deceive.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.stm

 

The above article published last month should be of interest to you.

[Smarties]

This is the "Great Mystery of the Ages" that even modern scientists have no knowledge about

 

hmm, seeing how ancient rome knew where this star was.. and seeing how we know the radiation levels, distance, and size of the thing, yes, we know nothing of this, and it is going to unexpectingly cross our path without and beforehand knowledge. gotta give props to the internet on this one

 

-and with research you would know there are closer stars/objects with almost the same m!@#$%^&* as the sun that are CLOSER than sirius, this sirius poses no threat for millions of years, were not traveling at lightspeed, and neither is sirius, this wont happen in the next 10 years rofl

 

-- oh check this out

 

The Voyager 2 spacecraft, launched in 1977 to study the four Jovian planets in the Solar System, is expected to p!@#$%^&* within 4.3 light years of Sirius in approximately 296,000 years time.[10]

 

ROFL ONLY HALF THE DISTANCE IN 300K YEARS, GG HOAX.

Edited August 27, 2007 by Smarties

[X`terrania]

Sever is right about the bible, and don't forget that it's been rewritten over a million times since it was made.

[LiDDiS]

!@#$%^&* star systems colliding, that's !@#$%^&* !@#$%^&*. In a few billion years our GALAXY will be colliding with another GALAXY. WE GON' DIE Edited September 4, 2007 by LiDDiS

[ra$ta420]

!@#$%^&* star systems colliding, that's !@#$%^&* !@#$%^&*. In a few billion years our GALAXY will be colliding with another GALAXY. WE GON' DIE

 

yep,wish i could see that .By that time everyone will be all star wars so one galaxy wont matter

[JDS]

Hitler: "I got down on my knees and thanked Heaven out of the fullness of my heart for th favour of having been permitted to live in such a time". (about WW1, Mein Kampf, 1914)

Rudolf Hess: "I know Herr Hitler very well personally and am quite close to him. He has an unusually honourable character, full of profound kindness, is religious, a good catholic". (a letter to the Bavarian PM, 1920)

Goerring: "Only a catholic could unite germany" (about Hitler)

Hitler: "We are convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out" (speech, 1933)

Hitler: "I shall remain a catholic forever" (to Gerhard Engel, 1941)

Hitler: The first thing to do is to rescue Germany from the Jew who is ruining our country... We want to prevent our Germany from suffering, as Another did, the death upon the cross". (speech in Munich, 1923)

Hitler: My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loniliness, surrounded by his followers, recognised these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord rose in his might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight for the world against the Jewish poison". (speech, 1922)

 

only an atheist could use religion as a median to control a religious nation without actualy being religious himself. Of course Hitler was an atheist, are you stupid?

 

do you really thing a 'religious' person has the balls to do somthing like that? The fact that all he had to say was a couple of things ^ like server quoted and all of germany is his !@#$%^&* cause he is doing it in the name of God. Religion is a joke

[SeVeR]

Hitler is an interesting one. Often cited by religionists as an atheist, he was probably a hard-core catholic

He could have been an atheist who used religion, but the quotes don't immediately point to that.

[aquarius]

I do think Earth as we know it is ending.Summers are hotter winters are colder

 

have you been to England this year? over here the winter has been warmer and the summer colder then normal.

 

Why is it some dooms day theories get more people believing them then others?

 

The world was supposed to end in 1998, 2000, 2002....

 

I've heard one for years saying that the planet will explode in 2007.

 

So if we listen to all of these the world will end every single year until it actually happens in a few billion years...

 

Yes, but this number (2012) is based on the Mayan calender, for the most part, the same calendar we use in most of the world. 2000, 2002, 2007, show no significance, this does.

[aquarius]

Another !@#$%^&*umption (of the end of the world) is that there's also the fact that the mayan calender ends in 2012 like as if there's nothing afterwards (the calender had entries for thousands of years)

 

It ends on 2012 yes, this is strange. I heard theories about 'time coming to singularity'. Maybe this is why, but I also had laid my eyes onto a piece of Mayan scripture which stated that there will be an asteroid in 2012.

[aquarius]

as for the world turning upside down this is not true but there will be a polarity reversal causing an out of body experience for all of mankind, it is unknown if the reversal will resonate for the next 2000 years.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal

 

Astronomical ages, they last 2000 odd years. Not suprising the Mayans end their calendar 2012.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Aquarius

 

We are in the age of the pisces, and are moving into the age of aquarius.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012

Really, 2012 is like THE YEAR that so many things that have been waiting to happen, happen. Not to mention a truly significant year for astrologer/astronomers.

[»Purge]

continuum will die in 2012