# The Greatest Destruction Possible



## Poimen (Jan 21, 2009)

I realize that this topic is fairly obtuse but bear with me. So lately I have been taking out videos from the local library. Many of these videos are 'nature' based and produced by Nova, BBC, etc. 

These videos take on an apocalyptic theme: declaring the end of the world through some kind of natural disaster. Having gone through the wild weather videos, global warming etc. I thought the worst thing that could happen to us would be some large asteroid or comet smashing into the earth (such as it is claimed happened to the dinosaurs or in the mid-6th century.) 

But last night I watched a series called Hyperspace with Sam Neill. The series claims that some day the earth will either be destroyed by a comet hurtling at us with terrific speed OR some random, rogue black hole will swallow us up if not our solar system. 

_Caveat: I am a young earth creationist so don't take anything that is described above as an expression of faith._

But.... a few observations and questions:

1) How can people be so cavalier about the end of the world? Most of the scientists interviewed talked about it as if they stubbed their toe on the dresser, a minor inconvenience. 

2) What are the possibilities of such an event occurring? Is this far fetched? I thought black holes did not move around the universe. How many real scientists put stock in these theories?

3) What is Obama going to do about it? 

4) Our world seems to be far more fragile then we understand/believe. It seems that from the evidence one should be convinced that only God could not only create a world with (the possibility of) life but be able to sustain it. Many of the videos say that life on earth shouldn't have happened. 

5) The greatest destructive force in the world is God, and hell is awaiting those who ignored the revelation they have been given, hardening themselves to the testimony of the universe. If people cannot be convinced by the vastness and greatness of space that there is a creator, no one but the creator himself can convince (change their heart).


----------



## Ivan (Jan 21, 2009)

Poimen said:


> 3) What is Obama going to do about it?



He did say change was coming.


----------



## CDM (Jan 21, 2009)




----------



## LawrenceU (Jan 21, 2009)

The type of thinking that is behind the 'expert' testimonies such as are in those types of presentations are excellent evidence that God was right on the money when he said, ' Claiming to be wise, they became fools . . .'


----------



## Ivan (Jan 21, 2009)

LawrenceU said:


> The type of thinking that is behind the 'expert' testimonies such as are in those types of presentations are excellent evidence that God was right on the money when he said, ' Claiming to be wise, they became fools . . .'



*Amen!*


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 21, 2009)

Poimen said:


> But last night I watched a series called Hyperspace with Sam Neill. The series claims that some day the earth will either be destroyed by a comet hurtling at us with terrific speed OR some random, rogue black hole will swallow us up if not our solar system.
> 
> _Caveat: I am a young earth creationist so don't take anything that is described above as an expression of faith._
> 
> But.... a few observations and questions:



Ah, Daniel, if only we had big plates of omelettes, hash browns, bacon and sausage, with monster carafe of coffee between us to talk these questions over... pity the restaurant is gone. 

Here will have to do.



> 1) How can people be so cavalier about the end of the world? Most of the scientists interviewed talked about it as if they stubbed their toe on the dresser, a minor inconvenience.



If you view yourself as not much more than a highly evolved worm, and your view of life is 'here and now' and 'eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we shall die', then why would such an occurrence have any moment for you? It's quite simple, I suspect, for someone with a purely carnal worldview to dash off such hypothetical occurrences as having little importance. 



> 2) What are the possibilities of such an event occurring? Is this far fetched? I thought black holes did not move around the universe. How many real scientists put stock in these theories?



The proper motion of most stars (motion relative to other stars and to us) is very small for the most part, and very easily observed. The idea of some heretofore unobserved black hole crashing the party is highly unlikely to say the least - its effects would be obvious as it came at us due to its gravitational interactions as it passed through the neighboring stars, star clusters and galaxies, and unless it was moving at extremely high speeds, near the speed of light, we'd have millenia of warning. I suppose if the star were very small (but then very small stars don't turn into black holes as the theory goes) it might be hard to notice immediately - but we'd have some warning at least.

Again, though, stars are basically seen to have tiny proper motions in general - very few stars move much at all.



> 3) What is Obama going to do about it?



Um, call Al Gore?



> 4) Our world seems to be far more fragile then we understand/believe. It seems that from the evidence one should be convinced that only God could not only create a world with (the possibility of) life but be able to sustain it. Many of the videos say that life on earth shouldn't have happened.



That kind of statement actually makes me believe all the more in the hardness of the unregenerate heart. If it "shouldn't have happened", that means it's highly unlikely to have occurred occording to the prevailing scientific worldview. Seems as though "highly unlikely occurrences" might prompt the possibility that the occurrence was planned by another. Much like discovering a Blancpain watch on a hike through the Gobi Desert and failing to hypothesize that it didn't just grow there.



> 5) The greatest destructive force in the world is God, and hell is awaiting those who ignored the revelation they have been given, hardening themselves to the testimony of the universe. If people cannot be convinced by the vastness and greatness of space that there is a creator, no one but the creator himself can convince (change their heart).



Indeed. Sheer evidence never convinces the blind and deaf unbeliever, until the Holy Spirit brings him to his knees in worship of Almighty God, and to submission to Him.


----------



## Grymir (Jan 21, 2009)

Our world isn't fragile.

And since it will be buisiness as usual in the book of Revelation, I don't worry about any of the above happening. They won't. It's a bunch of scientists speculating within their naturalistic world view. It's much better to rest on the word of God and know that its all idle speculation and won't come to pass.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 21, 2009)




----------



## turmeric (Jan 21, 2009)

Paul Harvey talked about that black hole this morning. It must be true if he said it!


----------



## Poimen (Jan 21, 2009)

Thank you (all) for the interaction.

Todd:

Do any scientists debate the existence of black holes?


----------



## Iconoclast (Jan 21, 2009)

> 1) How can people be so cavalier about the end of the world? Most of the scientists interviewed talked about it as if they stubbed their toe on the dresser, a minor inconvenience


 Most of these scientists are so full of themselves they make it a twisted intellectual exercise , dwelling on hypothetical possibilities.


> 2) What are the possibilities of such an event occurring? Is this far fetched? I thought black holes did not move around the universe. How many real scientists put stock in these theories?


 It does not seem as if this will take place


> 3) What is Obama going to do about it?


 As we all have been told, everything that is going wrong is because of conservatives. The new diversity of the new administration headed by Obama will solve all problems.


> 4) Our world seems to be far more fragile then we understand/believe. It seems that from the evidence one should be convinced that only God could not only create a world with (the possibility of) life but be able to sustain it. Many of the videos say that life on earth shouldn't have happened


 When God answered Job he made it abundantly clear how we owe all to Him, Our very existence is a gift,and our unthankfulness is astounding. 


> 5) The greatest destructive force in the world is God, and hell is awaiting those who ignored the revelation they have been given, hardening themselves to the testimony of the universe. If people cannot be convinced by the vastness and greatness of space that there is a creator, no one but the creator himself can convince (change their heart).


That is why Paul guided by the Spirit explains the downward spiral of the unregenerate heart, exchanging God's glory for their Idols.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 21, 2009)

Poimen said:


> Thank you (all) for the interaction.
> 
> Todd:
> 
> Do any scientists debate the existence of black holes?



Not that I'm aware of... but they almost certainly don't act like sci fi movies portray them, since such movies were made clearly with no understanding of what's expected scientifically. Their existence is fairly certain based on very sound evidence concerning orbits of objects around them (e.g. at the center of the Milky Way).


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 21, 2009)

While I'm not aware of the "scientific" percentages of the likelihood of an "end of the world" incident occuring, I also do not care about them.

I am *theologically* certain it is impossible for the world to end before God's purposes are complete. Nor do his purposes include such a drastic event prior to the end. How do I know this? A promise...

Gen 8:22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.


----------



## Poimen (Jan 22, 2009)

I agree Bruce but the fact of the matter is larger meteors, for example, have struck the world before (Meteor Crater for example). It indicates the fragile nature of life and the all sustaining power of God to preserve life in the midst of the chaos of a fallen world (and universe). 

As I implied in the opening of the post I am, in a sense, just thinking aloud. I enjoy watching these videos because they challenge (sharpen) my worldview and expose the folly of unrepentant man.


----------



## Rocketeer (Jan 22, 2009)

toddpedlar said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> > Do any scientists debate the existence of black holes?
> ...



The existence of black holes is practically proven; at least, the only explanation of the centripetal force in all the galaxies balancing the rotational movement of all the stars around the galaxy's centers is the existence of huge, gigantic monster black holes in their centers.

Has anyone, by the way, heard of white holes? They are way cooler; Dr. Humphreys has a good creationist theory about how a six-thousand year old earth is possible with a billions of years age for most of the rest of the universe (less for the Sun and planets, more for the stars that are further away). The idea is that, if the early universe had a center containing all mass, than you could form a white hole, which sort of is the reverse of a black one; a black hole gets heavier and nothing can escape it, a white hole basically gets smaller and smaller and nothing can enter it, with a huge difference in the clocks within and out of the boundary. If earth where at the center, and you calculate everything through, you get to a likely age of somewhere between a few thousand years (from history) and a couple of ten thousands at most for earth, with the existence of the white hole in the order of days or years (measured from its center). The theory solves many of the current problems in cosmology. Won't go into it in more detail here, though. It all follows from relativity, and I think it rocks! Okay, I'll stop this digression and go on and try to answer your questions.



Poimen said:


> _Caveat: I am a young earth creationist so don't take anything that is described above as an expression of faith._



Good to hear! 



Poimen said:


> 1) How can people be so cavalier about the end of the world? Most of the scientists interviewed talked about it as if they stubbed their toe on the dresser, a minor inconvenience.



Because for them, it is! It won't happen in our lifetime anyways, and even if it does, we're rich enough to last for a while; especially in such cases as global warming, or nuclear wars.



Poimen said:


> 2) What are the possibilities of such an event occurring? Is this far fetched? I thought black holes did not move around the universe. How many real scientists put stock in these theories?



Black holes are unlikely to move around freely: they'd drag such a mass of stars with them and cause blots in star maps as to be either impossible to miss or easy to find, if close enough. Really, a black hole bends light and sucks it up, so if a lone one where close (with no circling stars (as the galaxies are)), whole portions of the universe would be blackened out from observation. They are not, so there are no black holes near. Simple as that.

The black holes that are on a crash course with us are in the galaxy of Andromeda, which is scheduled to crash into our galaxy in three billion years, though we know not for sure that that is going to happen. We can measure the radial velocity of Andromeda, but finding it's forward speed is hard; a satellite is scheduled to go find that out (among other things), called Gaia (2011, scheduled - will probably delay). Even if that happens, the chance of a star colliding or causing trouble in our solar system is minimal. If it happens, the two galaxies will most likely merge with no negative effects for the solar system. If the solar system will be ejected from the new galaxy/galaxies and form a lone star, that would also have no negative effects on our solar system. That, however, is three billion years from now, _estimated_, so I bet no one will even know what an American was, by then.

A little more distant, in about five billion years, our Sun will start getting through the amount of hydrogen it has to burn, and become a red giant which would expand to the size of the orbit of Mars. That would make earth uninhabitable in its current orbit; it might be pushed out of the orbit (in five billion years, I can project anything to be possible - if the human race will still be around) by technical means - one could drag it with smaller masses, such as astroids, or find other means. Or, we could have colonized other worlds, possibly terraformed Venus, Mars and most of the big moons around the gas giants. The gas giants are not heavy enough, I'm sorry to own, to start weight-driven hydrogen fusion by throwing them together, but it maybe we can start and control such things by then, or do without a star altogether (that would require tons and tons of energy though - on the up side, the hydrogen in the gas giants can deliver quite a bit through fusion).

As for asteroids and meteorites: we can deal with them. As an aerospace engineer in training I can assure you that current nuclear warheads combined with current launchers and current space capabilities are enough to end any of those threats. A proposed solution is to detonate a nuclear war head near the side of a big meteorite or asteroid. This would vaporize or ionize its side. Those vaporized/ionized particles would start flowing into space real hard (pressure effect), acting as a kind of a rocket engine and pushing the asteroid/meteorite sidewards so as to miss Earth. Unless things are seriously mishandled, this won't be a problem.

Global warming: think young-earth creationist. Where did all the fossil fuels come from? From living animals and plants pre-Flood. So if we burn all of that and release it into the air, CO2 levels will be back up to pre-Flood conditions. The earth certainly was inhabitable back then, so really, what is the problem? We Dutch will have to build higher dikes, maybe you Americans should start building them, but no big problems there. It will all be manageable.

Nuclear wars, now that is a nasty one. So far, MAD has worked, and I keep hoping it will work until we (in the aerospace community) have the tools to effectively kill all rockets, even large barrages of them. The Israelis are doing good work in that field, and Reagan's SDI gave a good impulse as well. It will take one, maybe two decennia, then the ICBM threat will be over. Bomber planes rarely get to target nowadays (even your B2's won't be safe from the new radars - Thales' newest radars, which work on different or even multiple wavelengths, can now detect 'stealthed' objects), and the chance a terrorist network can detonate enough of them to seriously endanger the world is so slim it can be laughed to scorn.

I believe I have adressed everything now, haven't I? If you ask me, it ain't gonna happen.



Poimen said:


> 3) What is Obama going to do about it?



Nothing? I mean, the US will take action in the case of a meteor/asteroid, and alternative energy will be sought for. The first is needed to protect Earth's existence, and the second one is politically good: get rid of those Arab dependencies, and the US gets a whole lot more independent. It also is good for the trade deficit you guys have run for the last decades, which is really hurting the world economy in the long run. America needs to get economically and financially sane and sound again, or the whole world will suffer. That is what will be your president's focus; he is a practical guy, not an idealist like Bush was.



Poimen said:


> 4) Our world seems to be far more fragile then we understand/believe. It seems that from the evidence one should be convinced that only God could not only create a world with (the possibility of) life but be able to sustain it. Many of the videos say that life on earth shouldn't have happened.



It is fragile, but not all that fragile. Really, the Lord built in plenty of safety valves, and as long as we can get the population not to exceed, say, thirty billion (theoretical max capacity is about fifty billion, but that is asking for the ideal, no-conflict world), we should be fine. Over time, we will be able to harvest the opportunities in the solar system, and then the opportunities become almost endless. Though that probably won't be in my lifetime, if you ask me.



Poimen said:


> 5) The greatest destructive force in the world is God, and hell is awaiting those who ignored the revelation they have been given, hardening themselves to the testimony of the universe. If people cannot be convinced by the vastness and greatness of space that there is a creator, no one but the creator himself can convince (change their heart).


----------



## Poimen (Jan 22, 2009)

Co:

That was a great post. Thank you for elucidating. 

BTW, I am Canadian. #3 was a joke for my American friends.


----------



## TimV (Jan 22, 2009)

> 1) How can people be so cavalier about the end of the world? Most of the scientists interviewed talked about it as if they stubbed their toe on the dresser, a minor inconvenience.



It's wishful thinking by a jaded population. Just like in their hearts, people were really hoping for Y2K to have been as bad as Gary North said it would be.



> 2) What are the possibilities of such an event occurring? Is this far fetched? I thought black holes did not move around the universe. How many real scientists put stock in these theories?



I love Star Trek, but know many others don't, so I won't use examples.



> 3) What is Obama going to do about it?



Hopefully not to declare a War on Terra (think Bush accent) since that would be another disaster.



> 4) Our world seems to be far more fragile then we understand/believe. It seems that from the evidence one should be convinced that only God could not only create a world with (the possibility of) life but be able to sustain it. Many of the videos say that life on earth shouldn't have happened.



Well, I wish those people would have lived with me while I was managing a 50,000 acre ranch in Africa. The "fragile" ness of the earth would have stung, bit, burnt and frozen them.



> 5) The greatest destructive force in the world is God, and hell is awaiting those who ignored the revelation they have been given, hardening themselves to the testimony of the universe. If people cannot be convinced by the vastness and greatness of space that there is a creator, no one but the creator himself can convince (change their heart).



Yep.


----------



## Mushroom (Jan 22, 2009)

No worries... the Planet X flyby, Mayan calendar restart, polar re-alignment, and super-collider particle burn-out will all coincide in a few years and we'll all be cosmic ash. It'll be nice to finally get home.


----------



## Skyler (Feb 2, 2009)

toddpedlar said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you (all) for the interaction.
> ...



Some scientists do. I read a Scientific American article recently(hey, it's good for laughs) that suggested that dying stars might collapse into singularities with no event horizon, thereby rendering them "naked singularities" rather than black holes.

Being SA, though, it's almost certainly improbable. They pick the wildest and most fantastical articles to publish--that, or the ones that slam creation scientists.

But anyway. The LHC won't destroy the world, and there's no black hole in position to swallow the Earth. All you have to worry about is me and my wormhole generator experiments.


----------



## Rangerus (Feb 2, 2009)

Poimen said:


> 3) What is Obama going to do about it?


----------



## steven-nemes (Feb 3, 2009)

Rocketeer said:


> Has anyone, by the way, heard of white holes? They are way cooler; Dr. Humphreys has a good creationist theory about how a six-thousand year old earth is possible with a billions of years age for most of the rest of the universe (less for the Sun and planets, more for the stars that are further away). The idea is that, if the early universe had a center containing all mass, than you could form a white hole, which sort of is the reverse of a black one; a black hole gets heavier and nothing can escape it, a white hole basically gets smaller and smaller and nothing can enter it, with a huge difference in the clocks within and out of the boundary. If earth where at the center, and you calculate everything through, you get to a likely age of somewhere between a few thousand years (from history) and a couple of ten thousands at most for earth, with the existence of the white hole in the order of days or years (measured from its center). The theory solves many of the current problems in cosmology. Won't go into it in more detail here, though. It all follows from relativity, and I think it rocks! Okay, I'll stop this digression and go on and try to answer your questions.



This is extremely interesting... Who's this Dr. Humphreys and does he have any audio material on the interwebs?


----------



## Thomas2007 (Feb 3, 2009)

Poimen said:


> But.... a few observations and questions:
> 
> 1) How can people be so cavalier about the end of the world? Most of the scientists interviewed talked about it as if they stubbed their toe on the dresser, a minor inconvenience.



Faith. In my view the idea is to create fear of the unknown on one hand and faith in science and man, on the other. Since man reveals the knowledge, man can save us from disaster.




Poimen said:


> 2) What are the possibilities of such an event occurring? Is this far fetched? I thought black holes did not move around the universe. How many real scientists put stock in these theories?



I don't know about statistics, but on a level of faith I would say they put stock in these theories.




Poimen said:


> 3) What is Obama going to do about it?



Save us, all that is required is a Saving the Earth Stimulus Bill, the theory is that by printing kazoodle of gazads of illegitimate money that this will create a new black hole through which the world will emerge as a new creation, leaving behind such a massive debt that the universe itself is liable to pay. Hence, if the truth were really known, this is how the earth was created originally and what you call "black holes" is just the debt of a previous existence. We are on our way to a multiverse, so things are progressing as they should.




Poimen said:


> 4) Our world seems to be far more fragile then we understand/believe. It seems that from the evidence one should be convinced that only God could not only create a world with (the possibility of) life but be able to sustain it. Many of the videos say that life on earth shouldn't have happened.



All the more reason to believe in man and science as revealing our salvation.





Poimen said:


> 5) The greatest destructive force in the world is God, and hell is awaiting those who ignored the revelation they have been given, hardening themselves to the testimony of the universe. If people cannot be convinced by the vastness and greatness of space that there is a creator, no one but the creator himself can convince (change their heart).



Yep


----------



## Rocketeer (Feb 4, 2009)

Poimen said:


> Co:
> 
> That was a great post. Thank you for elucidating.
> 
> BTW, I am Canadian. #3 was a joke for my American friends.



Yeah, I am bad at reading signatures. Sorry. 



steven-nemes said:


> This is extremely interesting... Who's this Dr. Humphreys and does he have any audio material on the interwebs?



Dr David Russell Humphreys is an American physicist and creationist author. He is currently being employed by Creation Ministries International (Creation Ministries International | Genesis | Evolution). He devised a theory that explains a thousands-of-years old earth and a much much older rest of the universe; it was peer-reviewed and accepted at an Australian Creationist conference. You can read more about him here: D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

His book, _Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe_ starts with an article explaining his theory for the lay-person, which is very lucid and easy to understand, and is followed by a detailed scientific article justifying his claims on physics and another one justifying his version from the Biblical account of creation. Very worthwhile, and it costs only U$ 7.99 at Amazon; I suggest you give it a try: Amazon.com: Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe: D. Russell, Ph.d. Humphreys: Books

He also made a film with the same title, which I have not seen, by the way. It is available here: Amazon.com: Starlight and Time: D. Russell Humphreys; John Baumgardner, Mark DeSpain: Movies & TV



Thomas2007 said:


> Save us, all that is required is a Saving the Earth Stimulus Bill, the theory is that by printing kazoodle of gazads of illegitimate money that this will create a new black hole through which the world will emerge as a new creation, leaving behind such a massive debt that the universe itself is liable to pay. Hence, if the truth were really known, this is how the earth was created originally and what you call \"black holes\" is just the debt of a previous existence. We are on our way to a multiverse, so things are progressing as they should.


----------

