End Of The World 2012?

[Edtharan]

You know, in the stone age, making calendars that extended to infinity (i.e., by banging rocks together, arranging boulders, or with charcol, or squashed berries, or by baking some clay) was kind of hard.......

Actually, it is not that hard:

1) Count the number of days that it takes the moon to go from Full through New back to Full (why full? it is easier to see than a New moon).

 

2) Count the number of Moon cycles that occur between the same points in a year (as measured by the position of Sun rise/set/midday/etc as it passes a specific line (between two points like a mountain range or two stones carved and placed in the ground).

 

3) Work out the ratio that brings the moon cycle back into sync with the Solar cycle.

 

Boom, one calender.

 

This also explains why so many different calenders seem to have their cycles end on the same year. By using a New Moon and significant events (solsitces/equinoxes) it is easier to judge these times and so eliminate the errors in comunicating the mechanics of determining the calenders.

 

Because there are not many significant events that can be used to mark a calender, and the purposes of calenders were generally used for determining times for farming. This limits the likely events used for determining the syncronising of the calanders and so even remote cultures will likely pick the events that determine the same cycle lengths.

 

It is not "simple" but it is not nearly as complex as you seem to think it is.

 

So: Why is 2012 a common end date for calenders? Because the combinations Planting and Harvest times of the year dictate that the selected significant solar events will likely be matched across any farming cultures and that the New Moon is an atractive marker for determining the length of a Month (which is where we get the word Month from: Moon=Moons=Month).

 

How were you created?

Well when a Mummy and a Daddy love each other very much...

 

Seroiusly, Although I do not know exactly how life was started, I do know that it can start without any divine aid at all. The reason I don't know exactly how life was started is that there are so many different ways that it can get started without divine aid.

 

If I just gave you the number 1004 can you tell me exactly what sum I used to calculate that number? No.

 

Just like there are many ways that I could have calculated the number 1004, there are many ways that life could have got started without divine aid (and if you though that I got the number 1004 by dividing the current year2008 by 2, then you would be wrong - I got it by multiplying 251 by 4).

 

The most likely method is that the chemicals in the Earth's early atmosphere and oceans were bombarded by ultraviolet radiation (no ozone in the atmosphere) which cause the chemicals to break apart randomly and then rejoin randomly. This would create more complex chemicals and eventually one was able to self catalise (that is the presence of that chemical, in the environment of the time was able to encourage more chemicals to form like it rather than as somehting else). Any variations of the chemical that would catalise faster would lead to more chemicals like it.

 

Eventually, this could extend to a chemical that could break apart other chemicals (catalyes their break down) and so it would activly be promoting it's own "replication" (destroying other types and creating it's own type).

 

At this poitn these chemicals would not be DNA or RNA, and mich be Amino acids chains (proteins?) or something else entierly. Even whether or not they are "Alive" at this point would be highly debateable, but the main point is that they are activly eliminating different chemcials and creating from these remains similar chemicals.

 

As more and more of these chemcials develop, then any variation that gives one an advantage over another will promote that chemical over the others. It might be resistance to being broken down, the ability to break down others, resistance to damage, self repair, reproduction speed, or any of millions of other things. And as this goes on they will become more and more complex, and will require energy and use that energy.

 

At no point will there be a "Spark" that chnges these chemicals from just being a complex chemical reaction to "living" organisms. It is human nature to try to assign a single point in time as the point where life "Began", but just because we want ther eto be such a point, does not mean that the Universe has to provide one.

 

If you want me to put it a more religious language: Humans are not God therefore why should the way humans think determine how the universe (that you claim that God made) behaves? To say that there was a moment that where life "began" is claiming that you have the power of God.

 

And how did the universe come into place?

Again, this is a case of too many options, not enough evidence to pick the specific one that actually occurred.

 

There are many scientific theories that have been presented that would result in the creation of our universe as we see it and none of them requier a God to do so. However, determining which one is a bit harder and requiers a lot more research. But the fact remains that we can have the Universe created wihtout the need for a God at all. So this line of argument can not therefore be used as "Proof" of God's existance (or non existance either).

 

Why does the anatomical system operate as it does?

Go take some biology classes.

 

All our bodies functions can be described through chemistry and physics. The elan vital (which you have been hinting at) has long ago been utterly disproved. IF you even attempt to go down this path of argument you will be very quickly have your arguments shot down.

 

Why and how did insects and animals come into place?

Well over time those chemicals (that I taked about earlier) became complex enough to requier protection and regulation constructs (cells). Then over time these developed cooperation and then division of labour.

 

Remember, these higher concepts are our own attitudes (and remember my warning about not useing our thoughts as determineg how the universe works as it is not only not supported by science, it is also not supported by religion), and can only be taken as an analogy to what went on. You would not have had single celled organisms saying: "Ok mates, we need to organise a committy on this".

 

This can all be achieved through mutations to the basic chemicals (DNA in this case). As multicelled organisms developed,and their cells specialised in a particular funtion, more and more complexity was added to the organisms and eventually they develoepd movment (legs) and protections (skin/shells/etc). As each solution created problems for others, and each problem forced others to evolve a solution to it, this created a feedback loop that eventually lead to all the life forms you see around you today (and these organisms are also locked into that feedback loop along with humans too).

 

Insects are only one (but a varied and sucessful one) solution to come out of that feedback loop.

 

And look, no God needed.

 

Why is a bee called a bee and an elephant called an elephant?

Well a Bee is not only called a bee. Depending on the Language that you learn a Bee can be called many different things. If you are wondering how the Word Bee came to be (no pun intended) in English, then you will have to do some research (the branch of studdy is called: etymology).

 

Why do you have a brain, a heart, lungs, a pancreas...?

Because they are the organs that evolved to process the chemicals needed to maintain me or to coodinate the various cells of my body.

 

Why are ears for hearing and eyes for seeing?

Because that is what they evolved to do. If our eyese were for hearing, then we probably would have called them Ears. :doh: :doh:

 

Ok. You are definitly on a very shaky ground as far as arguments go. You are using the "God of the Gaps" arguments. Not only does this violate the religious beliefs (one of the 10 commandments states: You will not take the name of God in vain (and what can be more vain that claiming you know how God did something) it is also bad reasoning as if any of the things you claim that God did is demonstrated to not have been God, then you either have enabled the complete disproof of God or are using a Logical falacy.

 

Think of it like this: If I said that Unicorns Exist, but they are really good at hiding, then no matter how many time you look for them and not find them you can not claim that I am wrong.

 

However, if I claim that Unicons don't exist, then the very first Unicorn found disproves me and provides proof that Unicorns really do exist.

 

The God of the gaps argument is the same as "Unicons exist but are really good at hiding". By claimong that God created life, and then when we finally know that life developed on it's own without divine aid you switch your argument to somehting else, it is exactly the same as if you tried to disprove the claim that Unicorns exist by looking for them and then I counter claim by saying that they just weren't where you were looking.

 

I am telling you to be a believer.

Ok what is belief? You believe one thing and I believe another. If belief is not based on any evidence or even rational argument (god of the gaps is not a rational arguemnt), then how can we determine who's belif is correct.

 

Imagine this scenario:

 

There are two people Adam and Bill and they are arguming over who own a house.

 

Adam believes that the house is His and thererfore Bill should move out. However Bill believes that the house is his and that Adam should move out.

 

Who is correct?

 

Ok lets look at this in another scenario:

 

Adam says that his religion is the correct one and that Bill should convert. However, Bill says that his religion is the correct oen and that Adam should convert.

 

Who should convert?

 

Get it. Beliefe is not good enough. If people can have different beliefs, then just claiming that because one should be a believer and so you must convert to my religion is rather a stupid argument becasue someone else can come up to you and use the exact same argument to say that you should convert to their religion.

 

If I must become a believer, why shoud I believe in the same things as you? What is my belief is that God does not exist? I would be a "believer" as you claim I should be, but I just happen to believe in something that is different to you.

 

So I put it to you: Become a believer: Believe that God does not exist.

 

Seek the kingdom of God and you shall have no worries.

I once sort it, but I got disillusioned with it. It provided no answers and did not remove my worries. I am therefore living proof that this argument is completely false.

 

Let us examine this further though.

 

You seem to be promoting the abrahamic God (more specifically the Christian God). What is the properties that is claimed by this God: All powerful (that is there is nothing that is beyind God's ability), All Loving (that is God loves each and every one of us), If you don't believ in God you will be sent to Hell for eternity.

 

So, God is all powerful and can therfore fogive and absolve us of any sin, even the sin of not believing in Him. He also claims to Love us, but just because we don't believe in him for a few years (while we are alive on Earth) he will sentance us to enternal torture. This is not torture with the chance to get rid of our sins (and if it was then god could also create a nicer method - all powerful remember), this is torture for an infinite length of time with no chance of us being released, even if we then change our belief and believ in him.

 

In fact, if we lead a terrible life, killing other people, and generally being completely "evil", but then change our mind and believe in god and ask him for forgiveness (as longas we do this while we are alive), then we can get into Heven. But, if we lead a life helping others, protecting and in all other respects a good christian life, but that our only fault was that we didn't believe in God, then we will be tortured for an infinity. What a great guy, he must really love us.

 

P.S. yes, you will get to beat cancer, if you seek the kingdom of God.

Statistics say otherwise. The same ration of Athiests with cancer rcover as Christians (or other religious believers). So either God does not go out of his way to cure cancer or God does not exist (and so beliefe would not make a difference).

 

And for the record... Why did the world continue on for so long, just to end in 2012? Have your ever questioned yourself? It's in the nature of human beings to question their surroundings.. So, don't be shy.

Actually, most of here are claiming that the world will not end in 2012. It is though this questioning that I don't beleive in God, that I don't believe the world will end in 2012 and that I rely on science and not belief to determin what the world is like.

 

Have you ever questioned yourself? Have you ever asked Does God really exist? Could the world be the way it is without a need for a God? Is my God the correct God? Could life have started without divine help? Or, Could the Universe have started without divine help?

[JohnB]

I wouldn't be too worried Mother Shipton tells us;

A fiery dragon will cross the sky

Six times before this earth shall die

Mankind will tremble and frightened be

for the sixth heralds in this prophecy.

 

For seven days and seven nights

Man will watch this awesome sight.

The tides will rise beyond their ken

To bite away the shores and then

The mountains will begin to roar

And earthquakes split the plain to shore.

 

So we need to watch for the dragon, and then;

 

And before the race is built anew

A silver serpent comes to view

And spew out men of like unknown

To mingle with the earth now grown

Cold from its heat and these men can

Enlighten the minds of future man.

 

To intermingle and show them how

To live and love and thus endow

The children with the second sight.

A natural thing so that they might

Grow graceful, humble and when they do

The Golden Age will start anew.

 

See? Our space brothers will save us.

[DrDNA]

Space men! That explains it. Beam me up. I'm ready.

 

Edtharan,

Great, or at least fun, answers. But I contest (or admit) that the calander that includes many dates that extrapolate into the future still seems quite difficult (to me anyway) using only simple implements.

[Mr.Chockuls]

even nostradamus predicts 2012...and incase nobody has noticed...isnt the weather acting kinda strange recently

 

Yes, is right, but i dont think that the subject goes by that way, one assumes that the sun is going to move to another part, in agreement with the Mayan.

[DrDNA]

We're all going to die.

[Physia]

Edtharan,

 

You make good points, but---

 

Choose whichever point you want to start from and explain to me the following: Why is it there? Who brought it there?

 

And for your explanation of beliefs:

 

Well, I should of went further and posted "I am asking you to be a believer of God."

But, to put it as the way you are, sure why not? You can be a believer of God and a science fanatic at the same time. At the end, God created a brain for you to be able to analyze materials, interpret ideas, and think about solutions.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

This thread is not about faith. This thread is about the end of the world. Please try to remember that.

[JohnB]

This thread is not about faith. This thread is about the end of the world. Please try to remember that.

:D

[Edtharan]

This thread is about the end of the world. Please try to remember that.

:D

 

A fiery dragon will cross the sky

Six times before this earth shall die

Mankind will tremble and frightened be

for the sixth heralds in this prophecy.

 

For seven days and seven nights

Man will watch this awesome sight.

The tides will rise beyond their ken

To bite away the shores and then

The mountains will begin to roar

And earthquakes split the plain to shore.

 

So we need to watch for the dragon, and then;

 

And before the race is built anew

A silver serpent comes to view

And spew out men of like unknown

To mingle with the earth now grown

Cold from its heat and these men can

Enlighten the minds of future man.

 

To intermingle and show them how

To live and love and thus endow

The children with the second sight.

A natural thing so that they might

Grow graceful, humble and when they do

The Golden Age will start anew.

Why is prophacy always written in (bad) poety?

 

Why can't they just come out and write in a normal sentence structure?

 

Or maybe that is the secret. If you write in metaphors and symbolism, then it can be interpereted as anything the reader likes, and so you can get away with the occasional (or not so occasional) mistakes in your prophacy.

 

I know the counter arguments to this, that people from long ago would not know the objects that we see around them today, but really, how hard is it to describe something like an areoplane while not using poetry and in a way that is unambigiuos:

 

A large metalic cylinder that flies like a bird wihtout flapping its wings that people use to move quickly throug the air.

 

If just 1 prophet had written something like that then there would be no debate over their prophacy. Are these prophets so stupid that they could not even write down a physical description of what they saw without using all the metaphors and other flowery language?

 

All that would be needed is 1 unambigious description of a modern object from one of these prophets and they would be taken much more seriously. However, I have never heard of a single case where a single unambigious descrition of a modern object has been made by a prophet.

 

Even many modern prophacies seem to follow this flowery language (as if it somehow gives validity to the prophacy if it is written obscurely) for objects that the prophet would be familiar with ( ).

 

If these prophets are able to see the future, and do so for a lot of their lives, then they would become familiar with the objects that they see. They would be able to give a decent description of them (even if it is just a physical description rather than a functional description - but they should be able to give a basic functional description). They may not be able to give the exact same name that we use in the description, but so many objects have their name based on its looks or function (or written on it if the prophet doesn't get sound with their visions) that they should be able to get close to the name from a description.

 

For exampel: The Horseless Carriage = Car. When the Car first came out, it was sometimes refered toa s a Horseless Carriage, why could a 15th century prophet (ie: Mother Shipton), not be able to come up with a description of a car the same or similar to that?

[JohnB]

For exampel: The Horseless Carriage = Car. When the Car first came out, it was sometimes refered toa s a Horseless Carriage, why could a 15th century prophet (ie: Mother Shipton), not be able to come up with a description of a car the same or similar to that?

Don't take this as serious but you asked for it,

A carriage without horse will go

Disaster fill the world with woe.

Through towering hills proud men shall ride

No horse or ass move by his side.

Beneath the water, men shall walk

Shall ride, shall sleep, shall even talk.

Some others:

Around the world men's thoughts will fly

Quick as the twinkling of an eye.

For in those wondrous far off days

The women shall adopt a craze

To dress like men, and trousers wear

And to cut off their locks of hair

They'll ride astride with brazen brow

As witches do on broomstick now.

And roaring monsters with man atop

Does seem to eat the verdant crop

And men shall fly as birds do now

And give away the horse and plough.

When pictures seem alive with movements free

When boats like fishes swim beneath the sea,

And christian one fights christian two

And nations sigh, yet nothing do

And yellow men great power gain

From mighty bear with whom they've lain.

No, I don't believe in prophesy, but I admit I find Mother Shipton.... interesting.

[Edtharan]

Don't take this as serious but you asked for it,

 

But I did ask for then to be unambigious.

 

A carriage without horse will go

Disaster fill the world with woe.

And if a carriage that royalty/leading party had been in had come loose (because it was sabotaged) and ran out of control, then one could easily point ot that as "A carriage without horse will go" and the deaths might have sparked a war "Disaster fill the world with woe."

 

This is the reason that (bad) poetry is such a problem. Who ever wrote that one was still using symobolism.

 

No, I don't believe in prophesy, but I admit I find Mother Shipton.... interesting.

Actually Arthur C Clarck, George Orwell and all those other sci-fi writers were probably just as acurate. Are they prophets (or were they in it for the profit )?

 

However, a quick read of the wikipedia article came up with something very interesting:

It is now generally accepted that the figure of Mother Shipton was largely a myth, and that the majority of her prophecies were composed by others in retrospect, after her death.

 

IF you read to the end of the "prophecy" that you have been quoting the last two lines read:

"The world to an end shall come,

In eighteen hundred and eighty one."

 

Whoops, I think we might have mised the end of the world guys...

[DrDNA]

IF you read to the end of the "prophecy" that you have been quoting the last two lines read:

"The world to an end shall come,

In eighteen hundred and eighty one."

 

Whoops, I think we might have mised the end of the world guys...

 

In fact, in 1881 Austria-Hungary and Serbia signed a militarty treaty to halt Russian influence in Serbia. Austria-Hungary already had an alliance with Germany to protect each other from Russia. Then Germany and Austria-Hungary made an alliance with Italy to stop Italy from taking sides with Russia. Then Russia formed an alliance with France to protect herself against Germany and Austria-Hungary. Then there was an agreement, but not a formal alliance, between France and Britain; followed an agreement between Britain and Russia. Then, a treaty was signed between Russia, France and Britain to counter the increasing threat from Germany followed by, in 1914, Triple Entente (no separate peace) in which Britain, Russia and France agreed not to sign for peace separately. Finally, in 1914, Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austrian-Hungarian crown, visited the Bosnian capital, Sarajevo, where Bosnian Serb militants of the nationalist group Mlada Bosna, supplied by the Serbian militant group Black Hand, ambushed Franz Ferdinand's convoy and assassinated him leading to WWI and the the end of the world which will soon be over.

 

It is quite simple really and now you can see how the prohecy was true.

[Taq_is_hot]

Global warming is going to kill us all on December 21, 2012 and we will all die and yeah...j/k

 

But I do know some people who think that. I have a friend who claims to be a firm believer that we will all die on that date. I know another girl at my school who believes that global warming will kill us all on that date. However, I don't think that we will all die. If anything does actually happen on the Apacolypse, it will be a change not an ending.

[plant lord]

actually only 12% of his predictions were rite

[Reaper]

Or, December 21, 2012 is probably going to end up being one of these days...

[Edtharan]

It is quite simple really and now you can see how the prohecy was true.

Umm, but we are here and it is 2008. So the world could not have ended, therefore it is completely wrong.

 

In fact, in 1881 Austria-Hungary and Serbia signed a militarty treaty to halt Russian influence in Serbia. Austria-Hungary already had an alliance with Germany to protect each other from Russia. Then Germany and Austria-Hungary made an alliance with Italy to stop Italy from taking sides with Russia. Then Russia formed an alliance with France to protect herself against Germany and Austria-Hungary. Then there was an agreement, but not a formal alliance, between France and Britain; followed an agreement between Britain and Russia. Then, a treaty was signed between Russia, France and Britain to counter the increasing threat from Germany followed by, in 1914, Triple Entente (no separate peace) in which Britain, Russia and France agreed not to sign for peace separately. Finally, in 1914, Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austrian-Hungarian crown, visited the Bosnian capital, Sarajevo, where Bosnian Serb militants of the nationalist group Mlada Bosna, supplied by the Serbian militant group Black Hand, ambushed Franz Ferdinand's convoy and assassinated him leading to WWI and the the end of the world which will soon be over.

And so why didn't Mother Shipton not just write exactly what you just wrote? It is about the same length and your passage would have given people enough information to avoid WWI. If that was what she saw, then why didn't she just write that?

[JohnB]

But I did ask for then to be unambigious.

Aw, that takes all the fun out of it.

 

All I know is that this could be a bad year. 2006 was great because bugger all rymes with "six". Last year was alright "seven", "heaven" maybe.

 

But 2008? Late, fate, great, weight, sate. But if we get through this one we should be right until 2021.

 

"And the worlde shall to an ende will comme,

In tumpty, tumpty, tumpty, one."

[Dr.CWho]

Has anyone read the book of Isaiah? The Revelation of John? Both indicate a long period of war, then a final battle and a Golden Age. The millenium would come first so we should have at least another thousand years. That gives some credibility to Nostrodamus's prediction of the end occurring into the 3rd millenium A.D., still consider the movie "Apocalypse Now." The wars and plagues and floods and quakes have been happening all around us. Global warming is predicted also, but consider the issue of over 90 tactical nukes missing from the Russian arsenal. Putin denies it now, but that is easily a ploy to make Russia seem like less of boobs for allowing it to happen.

 

Polar shift? Good question...

[DrDNA]

"Apocalypse Now" was about the insanity of the war in Vietnam.

[Dr.CWho]

POM,

Those are simply opinions of theologians who truly want to discount prophecy. I'm of the opinion that prophecy involves time travel of images through the pineal body within our brains. Consider how that gland might compare to a machine using Casimir Negative Energy.

 

Have you ever known someone who has described a deja vu that there was no way the person could have had the knowledge of a certain image till some twenty years in their future? Most deja vu's can be dismissed as memory lapses or even genetic memory at the further stretch of the imagination. There are a few that cannot be explained as such.

 

In my opinion, this is how "visions" occur and some are more prone toward such reception of images cast backwards than others.

 

Just some food for thought.

 

Dr. CWho

[DrDNA]

Put another way, it is "the system" or as I prefer to called it..."the man"

 

But not the man that will risk his neck for his brother man....the black private dick that's a sex machine to all the chicks.....

SHAFT! Ya damn right!

.......he's a bad mother...watch your mouth.

Can you dig it?

[Mwatersupci]

If u read the bible, youll start to realize when the bible usually talks about animals in a futuristic sense, they are country's. Lion=Briton Eagle=US Bear=Russia, so on so forth. You put all those together what do you have? UN.... One of the heads had a fatal wound but the wound had been healed= Germany. How do you fight the entire world?

 

Timeline of future (Past and Future for us) Events. To get an understanding of WHAT is ahead you have to see whats BEHIND. The book of Revelations is allready HAPPENING. If your truly interested, read about the trumpets. Each one is a specific event in history.

1st,Revelation 8:7 (NKJV)

"7 The first angel sounded: And hail and fire followed, mingled with blood, and they were thrown to the earth.[a] And a third of the trees were burned up, and all green grass was burned up."

WW1, look up the statistics of the burnt vegetation in Europe, Trench Warfare, Slash and Burn Strategy by both sides.

 

2ed,Revelation 8:8-9(NKJV)

"8 Then the second angel sounded: And something like a great mountain burning with fire was thrown into the sea, and a third of the sea became blood. 9 And a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed."

Ill break this one down for you, couse its fun. "something like a great mountain burning with fire was thrown into the sea," Whats that sound like to you? If you lived in biblical times, and you saw an atomic explosion, how would you describe it? Now thrown into the sea?, um japan anyone? . and a third of the sea became blood. (research radioactive effects of an atomic bomb)...couses ---> third of the living creatures in the sea died (talking about the sea around japan). and a third of the ships were destroyed, look up this statistic and ull be suprised to find it was right.

 

3ed Revelation 8:10-11

"10 Then the third angel sounded: And a great star fell from heaven, burning like a torch, and it fell on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water. 11 The name of the star is Wormwood. A third of the waters became wormwood, and many men died from the water, because it was made bitter."

Chernobyl=Wormwood (Direct Translation), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl. The cap blew off and fell miles from the plant. Radiation from the plant dusted into the atmosphere, radio fallout it rained. a Third of Russia's water table became contaminated. Thousands of people died/ people and their kids still have cancer from it today.

 

4th id have to go back and look at it some more and do some research.

 

5th, Gulf war, Iraqi War (yes the one we are IN right NOW.exp Apollyon, look up this name and what person in Iraq is named the same (in a different language of course Apollyon is Greek, and you guessed it! Saddam Hussane) link to get more specific "http://ryanj1678.tripod.com/christianity4today/id38.htm"

 

You could easily line the others up and how the world is right now i don't doubt that Armageddon (ww3) is vary soon, It will be China coming down, "two hundred, thousand, thousand" (china Communist leader bragged he could man that number easily not to many years ago) For oil in middle east. US against China and Russia. Rest of world gets involved due to Alliances. Anti-Christ suddenly pops up and has the Anawear for global peace as the population is seaverly cutdown due to the war. You can see here on. Read the Bible. Its all there.

 

Jesuses church will be gone before WW3, Its best to be ready.

 

The three systems are already in place.

Political UN

Economical We all learned this one in Ecomics Globalization

Religious *headed by the catholic church, Srry pope *whispers* Youll be used by God to end the world, not save it!

 

P.Ss

Tired, 1:17 school tomorrow Good Night.

Forgive all Misspellings and improper grammar iam tired and passed my bedtime!

Point of reference, 17-Sr in high school.

 

GB. GG. GN.

[Sayonara]

Global warming is predicted also, but consider the issue of over 90 tactical nukes missing from the Russian arsenal. Putin denies it now, but that is easily a ploy to make Russia seem like less of boobs for allowing it to happen.

 

I don't really understand why 90 missing tactical nuclear weapons are anything to do with the end of the world. On a global scale (either geologically/meteorologically or in terms of human populations) 90 tacticals would barely scratch the surface.

 

Although to be fair I am sure the second bit is true. Putinnnnn!

[Mr Skeptic]

I don't really understand why 90 missing tactical nuclear weapons are anything to do with the end of the world. On a global scale (either geologically/meteorologically or in terms of human populations) 90 tacticals would barely scratch the surface.

 

People could cause a very large disaster with 90 nukes, especially by threatening to blow them up instead of actually doing so. And they might also be able to do something more impressive, like nuke the bejesus out of Yellowstone. Potential for much disaster there, but I do agree its not quite the end-of-the-world kind of disaster.

[Dr.CWho]

So what is this "beast" that Revelation keeps talking about? Is it a specific kingdom, or is something more allegorical in mind?

 

What is the best way to divide and conquer? Cut off communications. A telecom company with vast power and resources could totally confound exactly that if it were "all around the world."

 

Essentially that telecom would become "your world delivered to hell in a handbasket..."

 

Lucent was horse trading fiber optics with the Russians in the 1990's about the same time the nukes were reported missing.

 

Weird question this might seem. How many in here are familiar with the plethora of underground rivers around the planet? There are some in the outback. A vast number in Kentucky. Does anyone know of any in New Jersey? (I'm too busy to look in Google at the moment. Perhaps next time I log on...) I'll get to the reason of this after some responses. I might even begin another thread in here about some "speculations" involving the same...

 

Consider where that show "Jericho" comes from. CBS. Time-Warner owns CBS. Lucent, through corporate children owns 25% (or more now perhaps) of Time-Warner.

 

I don't know if this is the right place to discuss this. Will the forum allow a link to a site where I can be more descript about this "conspiracy theory?"

 

Dr. CWho